Social influence end of unit

social change

the process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours, includes conformity, obedience and minority influence

drawing attention

In order for a social change to occur, the majority must first of all be made aware of the need for the change, social proof is provided.

- the civil rights marches

consistency

civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population, but their position remained consistent, always presenting the same non-aggressive messages and millions took part in marches over time

Deeper processing of issue (minority influence creating social change)

the activism means that many people who had accepted the status quo began to think deeply about the injustice of it

The augmentation principle (minority influence creating social change)

individuals risked their lives many times, the personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces their message

snowball effect (social change)

civil rights activists continued to press for charges that eventually got attention of US government who then passed civil rights act, prohibiting discrimination

Social cryptoamnesia (minority influence)

Minority ideas are assimilated into the majority viewpoint without those in the majority remembering where the ideas came from.

social change evaluation

+

- psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change, when people consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking, broad thinking, Nemeth argues this leads to more creative solutions and better decisions

- Nolan et al (2008) groups were left notes on their door on the preserve energy , one group was told others were also doing it while the other group were not told others were doing it, significant uses in energy decreased in first group, majority influence can lead to social change through normative social influence

-

- deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change, Mackie argues that it is majority influence which influences deeper processing because we like to believe others share our views and think the same as we do, when we find that the majority thinks different we have to think about what we actually believe

- some studies show that people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms, Foxcroft et al reviewed 70 studies where social norms were used to reduce student alcohol use, researchers found only a small decrease in drinking quality and no effect on drinking frequency, using normative social influence does not always produce social change

majority influence

When the majority of a group tries to influence others in the group to conform to their beliefs

minority influence

the case where a minority of group members influences the behaviour or beliefs of the majority

Moscovici et al (1969) aim

To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority

Moscovici et al (1969) method

- the all female group of participants were first given an eye test (128 participants)

- to test that they were not colourblind

- they were split into 32 groups of 4

- they added 2 confederates to each group

- they were all shown 36 slides that were different shades of blue and asked to state the colour out loud

- confederates were instructed to say green instead

there were two experimental groups in the experiment;

- group 1 = the confederates were consistent and answered green for every slide

- group 2 = the confederates were inconsistent and answered green 24 times and blue 12 times

Moscovici et al (1969) results

- in group 1 (consistent group), 8.42% of trails resulted in participants answering green (agreeing with minority) and 32% of the participants agreed at least once

- in group 2 (inconsistent group), 1.25% of trails resulted in participants answering green

Moscovici et al (1969) conclusion

Minority groups had more influence when they behaved consistently rather than inconsistently.

Although the results are small, the results are significantly different, therefore consistency is the important variable

consistency

Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. It's effective because it draws attention to the minority view.

commitment

Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, for example, by making personal sacrifices. This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest.

flexibility

Relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.

what consistency looks like

keeping the same beliefs over time (diachronic consistency) and between all members of the minority (synchronic consistency)

what commitment looks like

might engage in extreme activities which present some risk to the minority group because this shows greater commitment (augmentation principle)

what flexibility looks like

listen to counter arguments, be prepared to compromise or adapt point of view, take one step at a time

consistency evaluation

+

- Moscovici research supports this that minority influence people's decisions

-

- not all research supports this, Schacter (1951) where social workers talked about 'Johnny Rocco' a troublesome youth and the majority talked about a mixture of support and discipline, while a minority talked about harsh punishment, and when they majority couldn't sway him they voted him out and ignored him

flexibility evaluation

+

-Nemeth et al (1974) modified Moscovici study by including three conditions and had two confederates who said half were green and half blue, in the second they said dim slides were green-blue and brighter slides green, in the final condition they said all were green, second condition produced most minority influence (21%) as they weren't unreasonable or rigid

commitment evaluation

-

- if majority sees a minority has self interest in their campaign they are less likely to be influenced by them, Mass and Clark (1982) found that gay minority arguing for gay rights was seen as having less self interest than heterosexual minority arguing for same cause, commitment is important to gain attention to the minority but it can be seen as having self interest

Autonomous state

Where individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions

Agentic state

A 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.

why did Milgram believe we obey authority?

Because they move from autonomous to agents state

Binding factors

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling

Strategies individuals use as binding factors

e.g. Shifting responsibility to victims or denying damage they were doing victims

Destructive authority

When people use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes (e.g. Hitler), abuses their power

Agentic state evaluation

+

- Milgram's own study supports = verbal prods put pp's back in agentic state, when defying pp's in autonomous state

- Hofling et al (1966), 22 nurses phoned by a fake doctor and told to administer with 'Astrogen' which was a made up drug which clearly said only 10mg at a time, but the doctor said to administer 20mg, 21/22 nurses obeyed, acting as agent for doctor

-

- can only explain some situations for obedience

- Mandel described how inn ww1 the German Police Battalion 101 shot many civilians in a small town in Poland despite not being ordered to, they were acting autonomously

legitimacy of authority

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.

legitimacy of authority evaluation

+

- accounts for cultural differences in obedience levels = Kilham and Mann conducted a meta-analysis on Milgram's procedure studies and found that only 16% of female Australian pp's went up to 450 volts while 85% of German pp's did, how cultures deem authority differently

-

- cannot explain when authority is legitimate but disobedience occurs, for instance criminals and the levels of crime, other factors may be involved

situational explanations

- proximity

- location

- uniform

- influence of other people on an individual's behaviour

- agentic state

- legitimate authority

dispositional explanations

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality (i.e. their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.

authoritarian personality

people who are more likely to obey those in authority and discriminate against those they see as inferior

adorno et al (1950)

- proposed that prejudice is the results of an individual's personality type

- they developed the F-scale (for fascism)

- argued deep seated personality traits make people prejudice and highly sensitive to totalisation and anti-democratic ideas

- they did clinical interviews about childhoods

- authoritarian personality = the sheep

traits of authoritarian personality

- see the world in black and white

- rules are absolute

- breaking the law should be punished, regardless of the reason

- offer blind obedience to those they see as a higher authority

- prejudiced to those they see as inferior

- conformist

- had a strict and rigid upbringing

- afraid of their father (authority figure) so were unable to express negative feelings towards him, so displace them onto someone weaker

how does authoritarian personality develop?

- forms in childhood as result of strict disciplinarian parenting, for example the expectation of complete loyalty, impossibly high standards, harsh criticism and conditional love from parents is ingrained from an early age

- these experiences create hostility, resentment and despair in the child, who cannot express these feelings to their parents through fear of punishment

- instead, their emotions are displaced onto the 'weak' (known as scapegoating) and they blindly obey authority

authoritarian personality evaluation

Strength:

- In Milgram's experiment, those who gave higher levels of shock had authoritarian personality and more likely to blame the learner. Supporting Adorno's theory that personality influences levels of obedience. Elms ad Milgram asked 20 fully obedient pp's in the study to complete F-scale and scored significantly higher than a comparison group of 20 participants

Weaknesses:

- Doesn't explain how whole social groups like Nazi's can be prejudiced. All members would need to have authoritarian personalities. Therefore it doesn't explain all types of obedience.

- Hyman and Sheatsley (1954), found both obedience and authoritarian personalities are more likely among less well educated and low economic status people. Personality may not cause obedience but a third factor like poverty.

Alternative explanations:

- Generally, this explanation of obedience has not fared well, Psychologists regard the powerful situational factors to offer a better explanations for obedience. This explains why people without the personality type still obey.

social support on conformity

- pressure to conform can be reduced if dissenters are present

- Asch's unanimity variation showed this

- the risk of alienation is decreased when the pp's have an ally so they are less likely to conform

- social support can assist us in resisting conformity

--> however found that this was temporary; if the dissenters start to conform, so will the ppts

social support on obedience

- in one of Milgram's variations rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when genuine pp was joined by disobedient confederate

- he had a disobedient and obedient confederate join pp's and they were mostly influenced by disobedient confederate

- other persons disobedience acts as a model for the pp to copy that frees him go act from his own conscience

social support evaluation

Strengths:

- Allen and Levine (1971) found conformity decreased when there was a dissenter in an Asch-type conformity procedure, even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision. Supporting the view that conformity is not just getting someone else's approval.

- Milgram found obedience dropped significantly 65% to 10% when a 'disobedient' confederate was introduced into the situation. Asch found that conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5.% when a confederate went against the majority.

- Mullen et al found that people were more likely to jaywalk when they saw others doing it, disobeyed the sign when other did

Weakness:

- There are methodological issues with the research, many studies into social support are under controlled, artificial setting with unrealistic tasks. people can figure out the aim and act in the way that the investigator wants, lowering the internal validity.

locus of control

how much control a person feels they have over their life

internal locus of control

take full responsibility for the outcome of their actions, they don't rely on the opinions of others and are more likely to be leaders

external locus of control

blame other when things go wrong, they see life as being something that 'happens' to them and believe in luck or fate

LOC link to conformity and obedience

- people with an external locus of control are more likely to obey and conform

- people who have an internal locus of control are more likely to be able to resist social influence

why?

1. if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences (good or bad) then they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others

2. people with an internal locus of control tend to be more self-confident, achievement orientated, intelligent and have less need for social approval, their personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence

LOC evaluation

+

- Holland (1967), in Mi8lgram's study 37% of internals were disobedient compared to 23% of externals

- Avtgis (1998), conducted a meta analysis on studies with relationship between LOC and conformity, they found a positive correlation between external LOC and conformity rates of 0.37, as so9meones external LOC increases so did their conformity rates, however quite a weak correlation

-

- results from studies not always consistent, Schurz (1985) carried out similar study to Milgram on Austrian participants and 80% went to highest, found no link between LOC and level of obedience, but did find a link between ILOC and a sense of autonomy

- often situation we are in which influences our ability to resist rather than our personality, only really LOC influence when met with new situations may not explain all circumstances