Studied by 6 people
Define conformity.
The tendency to change behaviour in response to the influence of others (real or imagined pressure).
What are the three types of conformity according to Kelman?
Compliance, identification + internalisation.
What is compliance?
The individual conforms publicly but continues to privately disagree with the view that they express. Temporary + shallow.
What is identification?
The individual conforms publicly + privately, but change is temporary.
What is internalisation?
Views are taken on at a deep + permanent level. The acceptance of the view is public + private.
What are the explanations for conformity?
Normative social influence + informational social influence.
What is normative social influence (NSI)?
Desire to be liked, therefore we conform because we think others will approve and accept us. More likely to lead to compliance.
What is informational social influence (ISI)?
Desire to be right, therefore we look to others who we think are correct for info on how to behave. More likely to lead to internalisation.
Positive evaluation points for explanations of conformity (AO3)
Research support from Asch: 37% of people conformed to an obviously incorrect answer during an ambiguous task. In debriefing, some participants said they yielded because they couldn't bear to be minority (NSI). Most said they thought their perception of lines must be inaccurate (ISI).
NSI practical application: Schultz found hotel guests exposed to normative message that 75% of guests reused their towels every day reduced their own usage by 25%.
Negative evaluation points for explanations of conformity (AO3)
NSI and ISI don't affect everyone in same way. People less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI (affiliators). McGhee + Teevan found students high in need of affiliation we're more likely to conform. Shows desire to be liked underlies conformity for some more than others.
Likely that both NSI and ISI work together. Dissenting participant in Asch's study reduces power of NSI (they provide social support) + ISI (there's an alternative source of info).
What was the aim of Asch's study?
To investigate what would happen to conformity if the participants were exposed to a situation where there could be no doubt as to the correct answer.
Procedure of Asch's study (AO1).
lab experiment
misinformed participants or true aim: said they were taking part in a study on the perception of lines length
50 American male college students
participant sat around table with 6 confederates
participant always sat in second to last position
each person asked to say which line out of the comparison lines was the same length
12/18 critical trials where confederates gave same wrong answers
Findings from Asch's study (AO1).
conformity rate was 37%
25% remained completely independent
75% confirmed at least once
5% confirmed on every critical trial
debrief: participants said they couldn't bear to be minority (NSI) or they thought their perception of lines must be inaccurate (ISI)
Conclusion from Asch's study (AO1).
Even when the answer is obvious, there is strong group pressure to conform, especially if the group is a unanimous majority.
What was the overall conformity rate in Asch's study?
37%
What percentage of people remained completely independent in Asch's study?
25%
What percentage of participants in Asch's study conformed on every critical trial?
5%
What percentage of participants in Asch's study conformed at least once?
75%
Positive evaluation points of Asch's study (AO3)
Lab experiment, high level of control over extraneous variables (e.g. task, group size + instructions). This allows cause + effect to be established, which increases internal validity + confidence in findings.
Negative evaluation points of Asch's study (AO3).
Lab experiment is artificial setting, so lacks ecological validity. Conformity usually occurs with people we know, not strangers, so difficult to generalise findings to real life. However, Robson argues the study shows a degree of realism as participants showed tension and anxiety, which suggests it appeared real to them.
Culture bias as sample contained only American college students. Smith + Bond carried out meta-analysis of Asch's research and found conformity rate was highest in collectivistic cultures (e.g. 58% in Fiji) and lowest in individualistic cultures (e.g. 12% in Belgium). This limits generalisability of findings as results can only be applied to western, individualistic cultures (e.g. US and UK).
Gender bias as all participants were male. Research suggests women may be more conformist, as they more concerned about social relationships (Neto). Asch's research may be androcentric (only applicable to men).
Lacks temporal validity: people more conformist in this period because of McCarthy witch hunt. Perrin + Spencer replicated study 25 years later + found conformity was almost non-existent in male students.
What are the three variable affecting conformity?
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
How does group size affect conformity?
When the majority had 3 confederates, conformity rates increased to 30%.
Size of majority is important only up to a point.
Greatest conformity with four confederates.
How does unanimity affect conformity?
5.5% conformity rate when one confederate agree with the participant.
9% conformity rate when confederate gave an answer that was both different from the majority + different from the true answer.
In Asch's study of conformity, when the group had 3 confederates, what was the conformity rate?
30%.
In Asch's study of conformity, what was the conformity rate when one confederate agree with the participant?
5.5%.
In Asch's study of conformity, what was the conformity rate when confederate gave an answer that was both different from the majority and different from the true answer?
9%.
How does task difficulty affect conformity?
Asch made the differences between length of lines smaller so the correct answer was less obvious. Conformity increased as task difficulty increased.
What are the two studies investigating conformity?
Asch + Zimbardo.
What is the study investigating obedience?
Milgram.
What was the aim of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?
To observe the interaction between the two groups in the absence of an obvious authority figure.
What type of study was Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?
A controlled observation + a participant observation (as Zimbardo was involved in the study).
What was the procedure of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?
Mock prison in basement of Stanford University, USA.
24 male student volunteers (volunteer sample + lacks population validity) randomly assigned to role of guard or prisoner.
Prisoners unexpectedly arrested at home, deloused, given a uniform + ID number.
Guards were given uniforms, clubs, whistles + reflective sunglasses.
Prisoners only referred to by numbers (to deindividuate them).
Zimbardo was Prison Superintendent.
What were the findings of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?
Guards grew increasingly tyrannical + abusive towards prisoners (woke them at night, forced them to clean toilets with bare hands + other degrading activities).
Participants seemed to forget it was a psychological study (even when they were unaware of being watched, they still conformed). One participant asked for parole, rather than to withdraw from the study.
5 prisoners had to be released early due to extreme reactions (e.g. crying, rage + anxiety), symptoms appeared after only 2 days.
Study terminated after 6 days.
Showed both guards + prisoners conformed to social roles (guards became increasingly sadistic + prisoners passive).
What was the conclusion from Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment?
Guards and prisoners conformed to social roles, which shows the power of the situation to influence people's behaviour.
Positive evaluation points for Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (AO3).
High level of control over extraneous variables (e.g. only emotionally stable participants were selected) increases internal validity so we can be more sure of power of social roles in influencing people's behaviour.
Random allocation to roles helps reduce individual differences which could have caused different behaviour.
Negative evaluation points for Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (AO3).
Low internal validity: study didn't show conformity to social roles as participants were acting. They based performances on stereotypes of how guards + prisoners should behave.
Zimbardo exaggerated power of situation + minimised role of personality factors (dispositional influences). Only 1/3 guards behaved in a brutal manner, another 1/3 applied rules fairly and rest actively supported + sympathised with prisoners. Suggests conclusion that participants were conforming to social roles may be overstated as he hasn't accounted for personality differences.
Ethical issues such as psychological + physical harm, deception + consent not fully informed (didn't know they'd be arrested at home).
Contradicting evidence from Haslam + Reicher. Replicated study + prisoners took control of prison + harassed guards, showing people don't always conform to expected social roles.
Zimbardo was Prison Superintendent: investigator bias reduces internal validity.
Define obedience.
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order, usually from an authority figure who has the power of punishment.
What was the aim of Milgram's study?
To find out whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another person.
To investigate what factors led people to obey.
Procedure of Milgram's study (AO1).
40 male volunteers (self-selected sample) were deceived into thinking they were giving electric shocks to another person.
Deception: told aim was to investigate role of punishment on learning.
Genuine participant was always 'teacher' + confederate was learner.
Learner had to memorise pairs of words and was tested.
Teacher gave shock every time learner was wrong + shocks increased by 15V with every incorrect answer (going up to 450V).
How many participants were there in Milgram's study?
40 male volunteers.
How many volts did Milgram's study go up to?
450V.
What were the findings of Milgram's study?
100% went to at least 300V.
65% went to full 450V.
Most participants found procedure stressful + wanted to stop, with some showing signs of extreme anxiety, but researcher encouraged them to continue.
What were the conclusions from Milgram's study?
Under certain circumstances, most people will obey orders that go against their conscience.
When people are in a subordinate position in a hierarchy, they loose feelings of empathy, compassion + morality + are inclined towards blind obedience.
It doesn't take an evil person to commit an evil act.
In Milgram's study, when the venue moved to rundown offices, how did obedience change?
Decreased to 47.5 %.
What percentage of people in Milgram's study went to the full 450V?
65%.
In Milgram's study, when the teacher and the learner were in the same room, how did obedience change?
Decreased to 40%.
In Milgram's study, when the teacher had to force the learners hand on the plate, how did conformity change?
Decreased to 30%.
In Milgram's study, when the teacher was given support from 2 other teachers (confederates) who also refused, how did conformity change?
Decreased to 10%.
In Milgram's study, when the experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone, how did conformity change?
Decreased to 20.5%.
In Milgram's study, when the teacher was paired with an assisstant (confederate) who threw the switches, how did conformity change?
Increased to 92.5%.
Negative evaluation points of Milgram's study (AO3).
Orne + Holland argue it lacks experimental validity, participants were just going along with the act + they shocked the learner to please the experimenter (demand characteristics).
Orne + Holland argue it lacks ecological validity, as situation bore little resemblance to real life situation. In real life, obedience levels would not be so high, therefore findings cannot be generalised to real world.
Baumrind argues Milgram didn't protect participants from psychological harm (evidence= distressed in video footage). Also, participants were deceived (they didn't know true aim + thought shocks were real).
Positive evaluation points of Milgram's study (AO3).
To dispute Orne + Holland's claims that the study lacks experimental validity: films of experiment show participants were extremely stressed, participants said they believed the shocks were real in post-experimental questionnaires, why would they refuse to continue if they didn't think it was real + why did altering location reduce levels of obedience?
Hofling's field experiment (21/22 nurses almost obeyed confederate doctor giving twice max. dose recommended to patient) showed high obedience levels, which supports ecological validity of Milgram's study
To dispute Baumrind: 84% said they weren't sorry they'd taken part, and an independent psychiatrist interviewed participants 1 year later + found no psychological damage.
Useful to society: shows how easily people can behave in uncharacteristic ways which shows the power of social forces.
NEED TO FINISH THESE EVALUATION POINTS
What are the explanations for obedience?
Situational variables (e.g. proximity, location or uniform)
Agency theory
Legitimate authority
Disposition (authoritarian)
What are the three situational variables affecting obedience (Milgram's variations)?
Proximity
Location
Uniform
How does location affect obedience levels?
At Yale University, obedience levels were 65% (location gave participants confidence in integrity of people involved). At a run down office block, obedience levels were 47.5%
How does proximity affect obedience levels?
Closer to authority figure = greater levels of obedience (e.g. teacher + learner in same room: obedience levels fell to 40%). Closer to 'victim' = less obedient.
How does uniform affect obedience levels?
In original study, when experimenter wore grey lab coat, obedience levels were 65%. In one variation, the role of the experimenter was taken over by a person in everyday clothes and obedience levels dropped to 20%.
In Milgram's study, when the experimenter in a grey lab coat was replaced by a person in everyday clothes, what were obedience levels?
20% (lowest of these types of variations).
Positive evaluation points of situational variables affecting obedience levels (AO3).
Bickman carried out a field experiment (high ecological validity) in NYC. Participants were asked to perform tasks (e.g. pick up litter) by confederate dressed in plain clothes, milk man uniform or security guard uniform. People were twice as likely to obey security guard (92%) than man in plain clothes (49%), which supports power of uniform (uniform conveys authority).
Hoffling's study (21/22 nurses almost obeyed doctor giving twice max. dose recommended to patient) supports power of location ( also, high ecological validity).
Findings replicated in other cultures: Miranda found similar obedience rates among Spanish students, suggesting situational variables as an explanation applies to other cultures + females.
High control over variables (he systematically altered one variable at a time) means cause + effect can be established + Milgram can be confident in identifying which factors affect obedience.
Negative evaluation points of situational variables affecting obedience levels (AO3).
Cultural bias: most studies took place in western, developed societies (e.g. Miranda's study in Spain), which aren't culturally different to US, so we can't conclude that Milgram's findings can apply to people everywhere.
Explanations for obedience: agency theory (AO1).
The less responsible you feel for your actions, the more obedient you will be.
Two psychological states: autonomous state + agentic state
Autonomous state: people are aware of consequences of their actions + feel responsible for them.
Agentic state: person sees themselves as an agent simply carrying out orders, they don't feel personally responsible for their actions.
Agentic shift: person shifts from autonomous to agentic state + becomes more obedient (i.e. if an authority figure says 'I'm responsible for what happens').
Moral strain may occur if we obey an order that goes against our conscience + do something we believe to be immoral (to be an agent of authority).
Binding factors (e.g. social etiquette- to leave experiment, participant must breach commitment made to experimenter) keep person in agentic state + bind them to obedience.
What is the autonomous state?
When people are aware of consequences of their actions + feel responsible for them.
What is the agentic state?
When a person sees themselves as an agent simply carrying out orders, they don't feel personally responsible for their actions.
What occurs between the autonomous state + the agentic state?
Agentic shift: person shifts from autonomous to agentic state + becomes more obedient (i.e. if an authority figure says 'I'm responsible for what happens').
Positive evaluation points for the agentic state as an explanation for obedience (AO3).
Hoffling's study (21/22 nurses almost obeyed doctor giving twice max. dose recommended to patient) supports. They were agents carrying out orders from an authority figure. Study carried out in real-life, therefore shows the agentic state explains why some people obey orders in real life situations.
Blass + Schmitt showed film of Milgram's study to students + asked them who was responsible for harm to learner. They blamed experimenter (due to his high status as an expert), which suggests most people feel authority figure is responsible.
Negative evaluation points for the agentic state as an explanation for obedience (AO3).
Not all participants (35%) in Milgram's study obeyed. All participants should have been in agentic state as experimenter said 'I'm responsible', therefore there must be other reasons why people obey (e.g. personality). Not all acts of obedience can be explained by the agency theory.
CAN USE OTHER EXPLANATIONS (E.G. LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY + AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY) TO EVALUATE
Explanations for obedience: legitimate authority (AO1).
Refers to amount of social power held by person giving orders.
Most societies organised in hierarchal way + as children we're taught to respect this.
Individuals may have legitimate authority because we trust them, they have the power to punish (e.g. head teacher), or they're experts (e.g. doctor).
Status, location + uniform may mean an authority figure is perceived as having legitimate authority.
Demonstrated by Milgram's variations: higher obedience levels when experimenter wore lab coat + at Yale University vs carried out in run down office with experimenter dressed in normal clothes.
Kelman + Hamilton suggest 3 main factors to explain obedience: legitimacy of system, legitimacy of authority within system + legitimacy of orders given.
Kelman + Hamilton suggest there are 3 main factors to explain obedience. What are they?
Legitimacy of system
Legitimacy of authority within system
Legitimacy of orders given
Positive evaluation points for legitimate authority as an explanation for obedience (AO3).
Supported by Milgram's experiment + variations: in original study experimenter wore a lab coat + obedience levels were 65%, but when experimenter wore plain clothes obedience levels dropped to 20%.
Supported by Hoffling's study- 21/22 nurses almost obeyed doctor giving twice max. dose recommended to patient because they were in a legitimate location (hospital) + order was given by a legitimate authority figure (doctor). This suggests legitimate authority is an explanation for real life obedience.
Supported by Bickman's study: field experiment (high ecological validity) in NYC. Participants were asked to perform tasks (e.g. pick up litter) by confederate dressed in plain clothes, milk man uniform or security guard uniform. People were twice as likely to obey security guard (92%) than man in plain clothes (49%), which shows more likely to obey if authority seems legitimate.
Negative evaluation points for legitimate authority as an explanation for obedience (AO3).
Not all (35%) participants in Milgram's study obeyed. Participants would've viewed experimenter as holding social power, therefore there must be other reasons why people disobey (e.g. they may have been in autonomous state + felt guilty + responsible for harming learner). Therefore obedience may be result of a combination of factors.
CAN USE OTHER EXPLANATIONS (E.G. SITUATIONAL VARIABLES + AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY) TO EVALUATE
Explanations for obedience: the Authoritarian personality (AO1).
Milgram + Adorno interested in whether an individual's obedience emerged only under specific conditions or whether it responded to the Authoritarian personality.
Individuals with authoritarian personality type are more likely to obey, they're obedient towards people of perceived higher status.
Can assess authoritarian personality using F-scale.
Authoritarians have extreme respect for authority + are submissive to it, they're inflexible in their thinking (black + white, not grey) + tend to have been raised by parents who used an authoritarian parenting style (high standards, strict, critical of failings, conditional love).
Describe the authoritarian personality (2 marks).
A collection of personality traits developed from strict parenting (e.g. high standards, physical punishment, conditional love). Those with an authoritarian personality are obedient towards people of perceived higher status.
Positive evaluation points for dispositional explanations for obedience (AO3).
Elms + Milgram conducted interviews with small sample of fully obedient participants who scored highly on F-scale. They found more authoritarian participants were more obedient, supporting dispositional explanations of obedience.
Even after education level was statistically controlled in Elms + Milgram study, more obedient subjects were still more authoritarian on F-scale, lending support for dispositional explanation.
Negative evaluation points for dispositional explanations for obedience (AO3).
Link between authoritarian personality + obedience found in Elms + Milgram is merely correlational, so causation can't be implied. A third variable may be involved (e.g. lower level of education according to Hyman + Sheatsley).
Middendorp + Meleon found less educated people are consistently more authoritarian than well educated people. Milgram also found less educated participants were more obedient than better educated participants. This suggests lack of education could be responsible for authoritarianism + obedience, rather than authoritarianism causing obedience. However, education levels weren't controlled so it's difficult to see if this third variable explains obedience.
Social context likely more important than personality factors. Milgram showed variations in social context (e.g. proximity of victim + location) were primary cause of difference in obedience levels, not variations in personality. Relying on an explanation of obedience based purely on authoritarianism lacks flexibility to account for these variations.
What are the 2 parts of social influence?
Conformity + obedience.
Social support is one reason people resist conformity (AO1).
Asch found presence of social support enables an individual to resist conformity pressure from the majority. In one variation, social support from an ally led to a reduction in conformity from 37% to 5.5%.
Breaks unanimous position of majority (by raising possibility of other ways of thinking).
Other person acts as a model (Asch found if non-conforming person starts conforming, so does participant).
resisting obedience due to social support (AO1).
In one of Milgram’s variations, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10% when participant was joined by disobedient confederate.
Disobedient peers act as models on which individual can model their own behaviour.
Positive evaluation for social support (AO3).
Allen + Levine found conformity decreased when there was a dissenter in an Asch type study. They conducted another variation where confederate giving support wore glasses with thick lenses, therefore he provided invalid social support (due to visual discrimination). Valid social supporter (normal vision) had much more impact , showing an ally is helpful in resisting conformity. Both variations show that resistance enables someone to be free of group pressure.
Mullen found that when disobedient models broke the law by jay-walking, participants were more likely to jay-walk vs when the model wasn’t present, supporting idea that disobedient models increase resistance to social influence.
Negative evaluation for social support (AO3).
other explanations for why individuals resist social influence (e.g. autonomous state, don’t have authoritarian personality etc.)
Locus of control AO1.
people’s perception of personal control over their own behaviours
on a continuum (between high internal + high external)
internal: believe they control events in their life, what happens to them is a consequence of their own ability + effort, more likely to display independence in thought + behaviour, rely less on opinions of others so are better able to resist social influence
external: believe what happens to them is determined by external factors (e.g. influence of others or luck), what happens to them is out of their control, more fatalistic + passive attitude, take less responsibility for their actions, less likely to display independent behaviour + more likely to accept influence of others so less able to resist social influence
Describe internal locus of control.
Believe they control events in their life, what happens to them is a consequence of their own ability + effort, more likely to display independence in thought + behaviour, rely less on opinions of others so are better able to resist social influence
Describe external locus of control.
Believe what happens to them is determined by external factors (e.g. influence of others or luck), what happens to them is out of their control, more fatalistic + passive attitude, take less responsibility for their actions, less likely to display independent behaviour + more likely to accept influence of others so less able to resist social influence
How is locus of control measured/ assessed?
Questionnaire. Closed questions (given a statement + put yourself on scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree)
Why are people who have an internal locus of control more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey?
They take responsibility for their actions, so they’re more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs + therefore resist pressure from others.
Why are people who have an external locus of control less likely to resist pressures to conform or obey?
They believe what happens to them is determined by external factors + is out of their control. Also, they’re less likely to display independent behaviour so are more likely to accept the influence of others.
Positive evaluation of locus of control (AO3).
Avtgis- meta analysis found internals were less likely to conform, which supports idea that differences in locus of control are linked to differences in ability to resist social influence.
Oliner + Oliner interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WW2 + compared those who resisted orders + protected Jews with Nazis. They found that the 406 rescuers who resisted orders were more likely to have a high internal LOC vs 126 people who simply followed orders. This supports idea that high internal LOC makes individuals less likely to follow orders (however there may be other factors).
Holland replicated Milgram’s research + found 37% of internals + 23% of externals refused to obey up until 450V.
Negative evaluation of locus of control (AO3).
Spector gave LOC scale to 157 uni students + found participants with high internal LOC conformed more than those with low external LOC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure. This suggests people with less need for acceptance are more able to resist social influence, suggesting there are other factors.
Holland tested for link between LOC + obedience + found no relationship. However, Blass reanalysed Holland’s data + found participants with internal LOC were more able to resist obedience than externals (which was especially true if they thought researcher was trying to manipulate/ force them to obey). This suggests personal control in a situation is more important.
other explanations for why people resist social influence (e.g. don’t have authoritarian personality, in autonomous state, authority figure is illegitimate etc.)
Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years + found that (over time) people have become more resistant to obedience + more external.
Can also criticise questionnaire used to assess LOC (e.g. quantitative data lacks depth +detail)
Define minority influence.
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes + behaviours.
What type of conformity is minority influence most likely to lead to?
Internalisation (public + private beliefs are changed)
How do minorities exert influence?
consistency (keeping same view over time + all members of minority group hold same views as each other)
commitment (being dedicated to their cause by making personal sacrifices + not giving up when things get hard)
flexibility (being open to change some of their demands, or compromise)
What type of conformity is majority influence most likely to lead to?
Compliance.
What is it called when the minority gradually becomes the majority?
The snowball effect.
How does commitment, consistency + flexibility make the minority the majority?
make people stop + think about the topic
leads to deeper processing
conversion happens when an increasing number of people move from majority viewpoint to minority viewpoint
Minority influence AO3- Positives.
Consistency is supported by Moscovici’s study: 6 people viewed 36 blue coloured slides + stated whether they were blue or green. There were 2 confederates that either consistently said green (36/36) or inconsistently said green (24/36). In consistent condition (36/36), participant yielded to minority on 8.42% of trials vs only 1.25% of trials in inconsistent condition. This suggests a consistent minority is effective at persuading members of a majority to adopt their beliefs.
Moscovici: high internal validity due to high control over variables (lab experiment). E.g. all female participants to remove confounding variable of colour blindness.
Consistency is supported by Wood, who did meta-analysis of 97 studies of minority influence + found minorities perceived as especially consistent were particularly influential, which suggests effect is representative.
What was Moscovici’s study?
Supports consistency
6 people viewed 36 blue coloured slides + stated whether they were blue or green
2 confederates that either consistently said green (36/36) or said green (24/36).
In consistent condition (36/36), participant yielded to minority on 8.42% of trials vs only 1.25% of trials in inconsistent condition
Suggests a consistent majority is effective at persuading members of a majority to adopt their beliefs
Minority influence AO3- Negatives.
Moscovici’s study used an artificial task in artificial lab settings (unlike minority influence in real life, as minority views are usually on important topics like politics). Lacks ecological validity, which limits generalisability.
Application of minority influence research is limited. Studies make clear distinction between majority + minority but it’s more complicated in real life. Majorities usually have power + status + minorities are tight-knit groups whose members know + support each other. Minority influence research rarely reflects the dynamics of these groups so findings may not apply to real life minority influence situations which exert a more powerful influence.
Define social change.
Changes in attitudes, behaviours or laws that take place on a large scale + affect society.
How is social change achieved through minority influence?
drawing attention to issue (i.e. commitment)
cognitive conflict happens with consistency: majority group members think more deeply about issues being challenged due to conflict created
consistency of position: more influential minority influence if their argument is consistent
augmentation principle: if minority is willing to suffer, they’re seen as more committed + are taken more seriously by others (e.g. risking imprisonment)
snowball effect: minority influence spreads more widely as more people consider the issue, until a tipping point is reached + it leads to wide scale social change
social crypto amnesia: people remember that change happened but don’t remember how, which makes it easier to accept the change
social change through majority influence AO1
if people perceive something to be the norm, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit the norm
behaviour is based on the perceived norm rather than the actual norm
gap between perceived + actual norm= misperception
correcting misperception= social norms intervention: identify a widespread misperception relating to a specified risky behaviour within a target population + then communicate actual norm to target population
how do social norms interventions achieve social change through majority influence
widespread misperception relating to a specified risky behaviour within a target population is identified
perception correction strategies are used to communicate the actual norms concerning the particular behaviour to the target population
by advertising norms, recipients are more likely to moderate their own behaviour to bring it more in line with behaviour of peers
Note 
Flashcard (78)