Studied by 36 people
Social influence
Comes from the social psychology perspective which Baron et al (1989) define as “The scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behaviour in social situations”. Social influence therefore looks at human behaviour as influenced by other people and the social context in which this occurs. Examples include Conformity, obedience and minority influence.
Conformity
It is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behaviour in order to be in line with a group. This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure. Conformity is also known as majority influence (or group pressure).
“yielding to group pressures”
Dual process model
identifies two reasons/explanations of conformity: Informational social influence and normative social influence
Informational social influence (ISI)
“Conforming to be right”
Individual is unsure about something, they may seek the opinion of others- especially if the individual believes that others are in a better position to form our own opinions than they are
More likely to occur in unfamiliar situations or in an ambiguous situation. There is a need to reduce uncertainty about the situation so other may be looked to provide guidance
Normative social influence (NSI)
“Conforming to be liked”
The desire to be liked- when an individual conforms to fit in with the group because we do not want to appear foolish or be left out. The motivation is to be accepted by others and to be liked and respected by them, and not rejected. One way to gain acceptance is to agree with them. This maybe because belonging to a group is rewarding
This does not mean an individual will agree with the group, even though they go along with the behaviour or show the same belief. This will temporarily depend on the group's presence.
Types of conformity
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
Compliance
Individuals go along with a group to gain approval
Public but not private change of attitude
Explained by NSI
Identification
Has elements of both compliance and internalisation as the individual accepts the attitudes and behaviours they are adopting as true (internalisation) but the purpose of doing so is to be accepted as a member of the group
Explained by both NSI and ISI
Internalisation
Individuals go along with a group because of an acceptance of their views
This can lead to acceptance of a groups point of view both publicly and privately
True conformity
Explained by ISI
Strengths of conformity
Research supports the concept of NSI, suggesting people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with their reference group (free will/environmental determinism)
Research supports the concept of ISI as exposure to other people's beliefs and opinions can shape many aspects of social behaviour (nurture)
Conformity is a nomothetic concept. However it does not account for individual differences
Weaknesses of conformity
It is difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation as it is difficult to know when each is actually taking place
NSI and ISI may operate together
NSI may not be detected as easily
Asch aims (1951)
to explore whether people conform to a group even when they know they are wrong, an unambiguous task
Asch method
Used 123 males as participants in the study. The task involved asking participants to estimate which of three comparison lines was the same length as the target line. However, not all participants were ‘real’ participants, they were confederates, only one participant was real. The participants were tested in groups of 7-9. The real participants were positioned either last or second to last to answer. The study began with two trials, where the confederates answered correctly, this was called a neutral trial. On the next trial, the confederates deliberately gave an incorrect answer, this was called a critical trial. In total, there were 18 trials, this was made up of 12 critical and 6 neutral trials
Asch findings
33% was the conforming rate. This means that the real participants agreed with the incorrect answer given by the confederates on approximation. One third of trials. Some individual differences were discovered. Asch reported one quarter didn't comfrom and one in 20 conformed on all 12 critical trials, Asch confirmed that the task was ambiguous by conducting a control condition with no fake participants. The results of this were that participants made mistakes on about 1% of trials. When he interviewed his participants after the experiment, the majority of participants who reported conforming continued to privately trust their own perceptions and judgements, but changed their public behaviour
The results suggest that because the answers were obvious, Asch’s study shows the impact of the majority. However, the majority doesn't always have the same impact on every individual
Confederates
paid actors to take part in a study (not real participants)
Strengths of Asch research
research support from other studies
Weaknesses of Asch research
limited application
ethical issues
artificial nature
Variables affecting conformity
Task difficulty
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
The difficulty of the task increased: the lines were made to look more similar
Asch found that when the comparison lines were made more similar in length, it was harder to judge the correct answer and conformity increased
Explained by ISI
Group size
The majority of the group was increased
Ash reported that there was little conformity when the majority was only one or two people
However, under the pressure of a majority of three conformity increased to 30%
When the size of the majority increases, as does the rate of conformity
However, in some cases the size of the majority is important but only up to an optimal point
Unanimity
“Agreement by all people involved”
In these variations the unanimity of the group was broken and one confederate was instructed to give the correct answer.
Originally ALL the confederates gave the same wrong answer
When asch instructed one confederate to give the right answer, he reported that conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%
When a confederate gave a different answer to the group, a wrong answer, conformity was reported at 9%
AO3 EVALUATION: Factors affecting conformity
Gender/culture bias
Controlled laboratory setting
Nomothetic nature of study
Zimbardo prison experiment
wanted to test people's reactions to an oppressive regime- whether they accepted it or not?
His was an observation with experimental features
IV= the given role of participants (guard or prisoner). Roles were randomly allocated in order to control participant variables
DV= conforming to a role (behaviour)
Procedure of Zimbardo’s exp
Set up a mock prison in the basement of a psychology department at Stanford University
Selected 21 male student volunteers who tested as ‘emotionally stable’ and were then assigned a role as guard or prisoner
Zimbardo played the role of prison attendant and began by briefing the guards of what they were to do- control the prisoners and not let them escape
Prisoners and guards were encourage to conform to social roles both through the uniforms they wore and also instructions about their behaviour
These uniform created a loss of personal identity (deindividuation) and means that they would be more likely to conform to their perceived role
Prisoners were brought into the basement blindfolded and were stripped and searched
The guards were encourage to play their role by being reminded that they had complete control over prisoners
Prisoners were repeatedly woken during the night to do menial tasks such as exercise, cleaning and receiving ridicule from guards
Guards often used other prisoners to ridicule, threaten and put terror into prisoners who had misbehaved (divide-and-rule tactics)
The experiment only lasted 6 days- influenced the change of ethical guidelines in psychology and the use of human subjects
Findings of Zimbardo exp
Guards took their roles with enthusiasm while treating the prisoners harshly. They harassed prisoners constantly to remind them of the powerlessness of their role. Highlighted the differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishmentsVictims of abuse tend to find it difficult to stand up for themselves
Demonstrates the corruption of power
In such a short time, the students perspectives started to become distorted
None of the guards intervened with the more sadistic and controlling guards
People obey, either out of fear or a desire to appear cooperative
Conclusion from Zimbardo prison exp
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals' behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Roles were easily taken on by all participants.
AO3 EVALUATION: Zimbardo’s prison exp
Control
Lack of realism
Exaggerates the power of roles
Cultural/gender bias
Lack of temporal validity
Ethical issues
Ethical issues in Zimbardo’s prison exp:
Consent:
Consent was given and there was almost no deception. However, participants were deceived about the aims of the study. However, Zimbardo would argue this was necessary to reduce demand characteristics. If they knew the aims this would reduce internal validity
Protection from harm:
Zimbardo left prisoners to go on hunger strike and remain in solitary confinement. Harm was caused to pp’s evident by the 4 pp’s who successfully asked to be removed. However, they were allowed to leave when they asked and guards weren’t allowed to physically harm prisoners. However, Zimbardo might argue that the cost in harming these pp’s is outweighed by the benefits to society of the study's findings on the dangers of conforming to roles. He could have observed a real prison instead of putting pp’s at harm.
Right to withdraw:
The right to withdraw was given to participants. However, when one of the prisoners asked to leave, Zimbardo asked him to stay and be a ‘mole’. This participant, because confused, reported back to the other pp’s that they were not allowed to leave. It could be argued that Zimbardo was adhering to his role of the prisoner superintendent. This actually supports Zimbardo;s main thesis, but it does not absolve the unethical situation which ensured where prisoners became increasingly distressed.
Obedience
a form of social influence, where there is adherence to a direct and explicit order from a perceived or actual legitimate authority figure. Obedience is more likely when the order is given by an authority figure and when there is an implied or actual punishment for non-compliance. And when the authority figure takes responsibility for the consequences. For example, a teacher (authority figure) ordering a student out loud (explicit and direct) to pick up some litter
What is the difference between obedience and conformity?
means yielding to behave in a certain way, in line with implicit group pressure from a majority of peers, whereas obedience is yielding to a direct and explicit order from one perceived authority figure. Non conformity is often seen as resulting in exclusion from the group, whereas non obedience is seen to result in unpleasant consequences.
Milgrams experiment
designed a baseline procedure that could be used to assess obedience levels as a determinant of behaviour. Social context: 1933-1945 millions of innocent jewish people were systematically slaughtered on command
Procedure of Milgrams exp
40 American men, between the ages of 20 and 30 of all different occupations, volunteered to take part in a study at Yale University supposedly on memory.
Volunteered through newspaper and mail delivery.
Participants were paid $4.50 for participating
When each volunteer arrived, he was introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate of milgrams)
They drew pieces of paper from a hat to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner. The draw was manipulated so that the participant was always the teacher. An experimenter was also involved (he was also a confederate)
The teacher could not see the learner but could hear him. The teacher had to give the learner an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake on a memory task (remembering word pairs). The shocks increased with each mistake in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts.
The switches were labelled from ‘slight shock’ to ‘intense shock’
The shocks were in fact fake but labelled to suggest they were increasingly dangerous. Only one real shock was given throughout the experiment and that was to the participant at the beginning of the study, this was given as it helped further convince the participant of the authenticity of the experiment
Participants often would protest and say they wanted to stop the experiment, but the experiment would respond with a series of “prods'' using as many as possible to bring the subject in line. For example, the experiment might say “the experiment requires that you continue”
Findings of Milgram’s exp
Every participants delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts
12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts, and 65% (26 participants) continued to the highest level of 450 volts i.e. they were fully obedient
Milgram collected qualitative data including observations such as; the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands’. Three participants even had ‘full-blow uncontrollable seizures’
Other data from Milgram’s research
Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychologists to predict the participants' behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were unexpected- the students underestimated how obedient people actually are
All participants in the baseline study were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire- 84% said they were glad to have participated
Conclusion from Milgram’s research
concluded that German people are not ‘different’. The American participants in the study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these
AO3 EVALUATION: Milgram’s research
research support
ethical issues
ethical objections
low internal validity
control
lack of ecological validity
Situational variables affecting conformity
Proximity
Touch proximity
Remote authority variation
Location
Uniform
Proximity
In Milgram's baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, the teacher and the learner were in the same room, and the obedience rate dropped from an original 65% to 40%, if the teacher is in the same room as the learner, then they can see the effects that the shocks are having on them and not be so adherent to obey the experimenter. Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Touch proximity
the teacher had to force the learner hand onto an electric shock plate in order to give the shocks. In this variation, the rate of obedience dropped to a further 30%. The closer the teacher is to the leaner, the more you can see their pain.
Remote authority variation
the experimenter left the room and issued instructions by telephone. In this variation, the obedience rate dropped to 20.5%, because the figure of authority is no longer present, therefore there isn't so much force put upon the participants and so they feel less pressured to obey.
Location
In Milgram’s research into obedience, the experiment was moved away from Yale University and conducted in a run-down office block in the centre of town. In this variable, the rate of obedience decreased to 47.5%, this is because the very established environment of the university gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, the rate was still high because participants perceived the scientific nature of the study.
Uniform
Milgram decided to have a “non-professor” dressed very casually with no lab coat in an experiment. In this variable, obedience went down to 20%. Milgram suggested that uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e. granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience as we cannot trust they come from a place of authority.
AO3 EVALUATION: Situational variables
Gender bias
Lacks ecological validity
Ethical problems
Nature vs Nurture
Explanations of obedience
There are 2 explanations of obedience: legitimate authority and agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way, meaning people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g the police, teachers etc. The authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society, we accept the authority figures because this allows for society to function smoothly. One of the consequences of legitimate authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. We generally agree that people like the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers. So we give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise authority appropriately. We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, though our parents, mentors and teachers
Milgram’s support of legitimacy of authority
the experimenter in the Yale location was wearing the uniform of a white lab coat and he seems to work on the behalf of an established institution, Yale, which held great authority i.e. the power to take responsibility of the actions of the teacher (and perhaps even to punish for disobedience)
Destructive authority
history shows that charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate authority for destructive behaviours, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous. Destructive authority was obvious in Milgram’s study, when the experimenter use prods to order participants in ways that went against their consciences
Agentic state
where they become an instrument of authority and make decisions based on the instructions. Milgram proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility. Instead they believe they are acting for someone else i.e. they are an ‘agent’. An ‘agent’ is someone who acts in place of another. An agent will experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to obey
Autonomous state
The opposite of an agentic state. At this level, a person makes their own decisions based around the potential or perceived consequences of their actions. The person is free to behave according to their own principles.
Agentic shift
The shift from autonomous to agency. Milgram suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a higher authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a high position in social hierarchy. If we obey an order that goes against our conscience, we are likely to experience moral strain, which results when we have to do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority.
Binding factors
Aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. Although people in such a situation may want to stop, they feel unable to do so due to binding factors. Milgram observed that many of these participants wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so. Milgram proposed a number of strategies for the individual cases, such as shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.
AO3 EVALUATION- legitimacy of authority
Explains culture differences-Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram style study. Whereas, David Mantell (1971) found that for German participants, 85% obeyed. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
Cannot explain all disobedience- A significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite acknowledging the experimenter's authority in the study. This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others.
AO3 EVALUATION- Agentic state
Research support- Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state into obedience. Many of the participants asked about the responsibility to the health of the learner, to which the experiment replied ‘I’m responsible’, the participants would then return to the experiment without any further objections or hesitations. This shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenters ‘agent’.
A limited explanation- For example, it does not explain the findings of Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobsons (1977) study. They found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug overdose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure. But almost all the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s participants
Dispositional explanations of obedience
relates to the authoritarian personality
Dispositional explanation of behaviour
highlights the importance of the individual’s personality
Authoritarian personality
A distinct personality pattern characterized by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
People with this personality show an extreme respect or submissive to authority- argued by Adorno et al
Such people view society as ‘weaker’ than it once was, believe we need powerful leaders to return traditional values
People also show contempt for those of inferior social status- fueled by their inflexible outlook on the world
These people are very uncomfortable with uncertainty things must be right or wrong
People who are ‘other’ i.e. belong to a different ethnic group, are responsible for the ills of society
‘Other’ people are a convenient target for authoritarian who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive
Origins of authoritarian personality
Forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harm parenting
Parent style: strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings
Parents give conditional love- love depends on how the child behaves
Adorno et al argued that childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child, the child cannot express their feelings because of fear of punishment
Fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating)
Explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority
This is a psychodynamic explanation
The F scale
The "F" stands for "fascist". Measures responses on several different components of authoritarianism, such as conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and sex.
What are the disadvantages of the F scale?
Sample: all male and the research was done in America, so can the results be generalised?
Does not explain why people are prejudiced towards some groups and not others
Not all prejudiced people had a harsh upbringing (and vice versa)
The attitude ‘statements’ in the scale are very limited (e.g. closed questions)
Adorno only found that there was a relationship (correlation) between personality type and prejudice – this cannot show cause and effect
AO3 EVALUATION: dispositional explanations of obedience
Research support: Adarno et al (1950) studied more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups. The researchers developed several measurement scales, including the F-scale. They found that people with authoritative learnings identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’. Also found high scorers had a particular cognitive style; there were no ‘grey areas’ between categories of people, they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups, there was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Questionnaires: A potential problem with the authoritarian personality is that it is identified using a questionnaire method. This may have implications for the validity of the theory. There is potential for the results of the questionnaire to be affected by demand characteristics. People may try and guess the aims of the questionnaire altering their answers accordingly. This may mean that the conclusions any studies make based on participants' answers to an F scale questionnaire may not be valid
Political bias: F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology. Richard Christie and Marie Jahoda (1954) argued that the F-scale is a politically biassed interpretation of Authoritarian personality. They point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism. Extreme right-wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common. For example, they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority.
Limited explanation: Cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. For example, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-semetic behaviour. This was despite the fact that they must have differed in their personalities in all sorts of ways. It seems extremely unlikely that they could all possess an Authoritarian personality.
Resistance to social influence
can be defined as ways in which individuals attempt to withstand perceived attempts to threaten freedom of choice.
Examples of resistance to social influence
In Asch’s conformity study, 33% of trials were conformed to. That means the 67% of trials were not conformed to and resistance behaviour was shown.
Not all the guards in the Zimbardo prison study conformed to their social roles as much as others. Some did not actively get involved with the activities to demean the prisoners.
35% of the participants in the original Milgram study resisted obedience, and did not give shocks up to 450 volts.
Bickman 80% obedience for the security guard, therefore 20% resisted, while 60% resisted the experimenter when dressed in normal clothes.
In the variations of Milgram experiments, resistance behaviour was able to be increased to 79.5% in the Remote Authority Variation.
One of the 22 nurses resisted the instructions to obey in Hoffling’s (1966) study.
Perrin and Spencer (1981) reported 0.25% conformity in their replication. So 99.75% of trials showed resistance behaviour
Asch reported one quarter of the participants didn’t conform on any of the critical trials, suggesting a high level of resistance behaviour. while around half conformed on 6 or more trails.
Social support to reduce conformity
enables an individual to resist pressures to obey and conform
It appears that the most important aspect of social support appears to be that it breaks the unanimous position of the majority, Supporters and dissenters are likely to be effective in reducing conformity because by breaking the unanimity of the majority, they raise the possibility that there are others, equally legitimate, ways of thinking and responding. The presence of an ally provides an individual with an independent assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident in their decision and better able to stand up against the majority
Allen and Levine (1971)- Asch type replication
Participants had no support (Asch type study) - 97% conformity
Participants had a supporter with normal vision who gave correct answers- 36% conformity rate.
Participants had a supporter with very poor vision who wore very thick glasses and gave some incorrect answers (not the same as the other confederates) - 64% conformity.
The drop in conformity rate from 97% to 36% from condition 1 to 2 shows how the SS from just one confederate can increase resistance to SI.
The increase in conformity rate from 36% to 64% shows how a decrease in trustworthy/knowledgeable/reliability of SS decreases ppts likelihood of resisting SI.
However the fact that 36% of ppts in condition 3 resisted SI, shows that even from extremely untrustworthy SS, people are still significantly influenced to resist SI.
What is a potential issue with research into resistance?
researchers are trying to recreate social experiences in highly controlled environments and often use artificial tasks. This may be problematic because perhaps these findings cannot be generalised to real world settings.
Social support to increase disobedience
Research generally indicates that individuals can be more confident in their ability to resist if they have an ally, who is willing to join them to oppose the authority figure,
These disobedience peers act as a role model, it gives people a disobedience model to follow. If the ally resists first, it gives the individual a way out of the situation. It shows the individuals that there is another way to behave
Milgram variation experiment
One variation of the Milgram study was called the ‘two peers' rebel’ variation.
Three participants (two confederates and a real participant) shared the task of teaching the learner.
Teacher 1 had read the list of words, teacher 2 told the learner whether his answer was correct or not, and teacher 3 (the real participant) administered the shocks.
Teacher 1 refused to continue from 150 volts while the second confederate teacher withdrew from the experiment after shock level 14 (210 volts) was administered, saying, “I’m willing to answer any of your questions, but I’m not willing to shock that man against his will. I’ll have no part of it.”
62.5% of ppts resisted obedience after the second confederate resisted.
10% went up to 450V, compared to the baseline of 65%.
This supports the view that social support does increase resistance because, social support with two people increases a disobedience to social influence and the participant feels more confident to resist the authority figure
AO3- SOCIAL SUPPORT AS AN EXPLANATION OF RESISTANCE
Other factors- There may however be other factors which influence resistance more than social support. For example, the role of personality. There is evidence that some people are more willing to show resistance behaviour than those others, for example people who do not have authoritarian personalities. Adorno reported that people who have this personality are more prone to obedience, therefore those who don’t have authoritarian personality are more likely to show resistance to authority.
Real world research support- Susan Albretch et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh USA, an eight week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 to resist 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
Research support for dissenting peers- William Gamsons et al (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his. This was because the participants were in groups so they could discuss what they were told to do. 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders. This shows that peer support can lead to a disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
Locus of control
Means location of control
proposed by Rotter (1966) and refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them.
a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control (external control orientation)." (Zimbardo, 1985)
Internal locus
you make things happen. Actions are cognitent on what we do and we are more likely to show resistant behaviour
External locus
things happen to you. Events outside of our personal control
Characteristics of internal LOC
more likely to be active seekers of information that is useful to them. Therefore they are less likely to rely on the opinions of others, making them less vulnerable to social influence
They tend to be more achievement oriented and consequently more likely to become leaders rather then follow others
They are better able to resist coercion than externals.
They are more likely to see the consequence of their behaviour as their own responsibility. Therefore they will not blindly obey or conform as they believe they will still be responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
AO3- LOCUS OF CONTROL AS AN EXPLANATION OF RESISTANCE
Research support- Holland (1967) who conducted three versions of the Milgram experiment with participants with internal and external locus of control. Overall, 37% of internals were disobedient (i.e., didn’t administer the strongest electric shock), compared to only 23% of externals. This therefore suggests that having an internal LOC made the participant more likely to show resistance behaviour compared to external LOC participants, and therefore the theory can claim reliability.
There is evidence that LOC is able to explain resistance in normative social influence more than informational social influence- Spector (1983) measured LOC and predisposition to NSI and ISI. He found a significant correlation between LOC and predisposition to NSI where internals were more likely to resist conformity than externals. No relationship was found between LOC and predisposition to ISI, with LOC appearing not to be a significant factor in resistance for this explanation of conformity. This therefore suggests that personality factors such as LOC have a limited ability to explain all resistance behaviour suggesting other factors must be considered to explain resistance behaviour.
Minority influence
A form of social influence which occurs when an individual or small group of people influence a larger group to change their attitude or behaviour towards an issue. A process of conversion happens as opposed to compliance. This is a deeper level of processing and it tends to outlast the groups presence (leads to internalisation)
Moscovici (1969)
He proposed four behavioural styles, that if a minority had they would be more likely to be successful: consistency, commitment, flexibility and relevance to society
Consistency
Over time, consistency in the minority’s views increases the amount of interest from other people. Consistency makes others rethink their own views.
Synchronic consistency – people in the minority are all saying the same thing.
Diachronic consistency – they have been saying the same thing for a long time
Commitment
Willingness to self sacrifice
Commitment is important in the influence process because it suggests certainty, confidence and courage in the face of a hostile majority.
To join a minority the degree of commitment is generally higher, as is the cost to the individual, than staying with a majority.
Due to this greater degree of commitment, the minority are more likely to persuade the majority group members to take them seriously or even convert to the minority position.
Hard to do without appearing inflexible.
This increases the amount of interest further from majority group members – the augmentation principle
Flexibility
It is argued that the key is how the majority interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid, uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the majority.
However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be seen as less extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they will have a better chance of changing majority views. The key is not to alienate the majority, and drive them from the minority viewpoint.
Nemeth (1986) argued that if the minority is seen as being inflexible and uncompromising then the majority are unlikely to change.
The minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they do not appear rigid
Relevance to society
It has been suggested that society has to be ready to accept the change the minority group is championing. For example Gay marriage could not have been accepted by the majority in the 1950’s as being gay was still classified as a mental illness.
AO3 EVALUATION- MINORITY INFLUENCE
Research into consistency as an important factor of minority influence- Mosovici et al (1969): Female ppts were placed into 32 groups of 6 (4 ppts plus 2 confederates) for what they thought was an investigation into perception. They were shown 36 slides of various shades of blue and had to say what colour they were. There were two conditions: consistent minority and inconsistent minority. In the constituent minority, confederates said ‘green’ to all 36 slides. In the inconsistent minority, confederates said ‘green’ to 24 slides and ‘blue’ to 12 slides. All answered aloud, with the confederates answering first. Participants were all given an opportunity to give a final answer in case they changed their minds. 8.42% of the true participants gave the wrong answer on the consistent minority condition, inconsistent condition agreement with the colour green fell to 1.25%. For a third control group, there were no confederates and all participants had to do was identify the correct colour. They got this wrong on just 0.25% of the trials
Studies in laboratories- Sampson (1991) is particularly critical of laboratory research on minority influence. He makes the following points. The participants in laboratory experiments are rarely 'real groups'. More often than not they are a collection of students who do not know each other and will probably never meet again. They are also involved in an artificial task. As such they are very different from minority groups in the wider society who seek to change majority opinion. This means findings of the majority influence studies are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-world situations.
Research into flexibility as an important factor of minority influence- Nemeth investigated the idea of flexibility in which participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident. One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions: 1) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change his position (inflexible); 2) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible). Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view. Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility but questions the idea of consistency. On the one hand, Moscovici shows that minorities need to be consistent, whereas Nemeth shows that minorities need to be flexible.
Research into commitment as an important factor of minority influence- Xie et al. (2011) found 10% of committed opinion holders was necessary to 'tip' a majority into accepting the minority position. However, the minority was only successful if they were also consistent in their viewpoint. This shows that commitment and consistency are both needed if minority influence is to be effective
Social change
defined as the process by which society changes beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to create new social norms (expected ways of behaving)
Social change occurs when societies as a whole adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours.
With majorities, it occurs through NSI and ISI
This process occurs continually but at a gradual pace, with minority influence being the main driving force for social change.
How might social change be brought about by minority influence?
Research has demonstrated that behavioural choices are often related to group norms. They are subject to normative social influence.
The Social norms approach (Perkins, 1986) holds that if people perceive something to be the norm, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit that norm.
Behaviour therefore is based more on what people think others believe and do (the perceived norm) rather than on their real beliefs and actions (the actual norm). The difference between these is a ‘misperception’.
Steps of social change
If an individual is exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their views to match those of a majority. Moscovici (1980) referred to this process as conversion, this process is vital for social change
Steps of social change: drawing attention to an issue, cognitive conflict, consistency of position, the augmentation principle and the snowball effect
Drawing attention to an issue
Minorities can bring about social change by drawing attention to an issue. If their views are different to those held by the majority, this creates conflict that the majority are motivated to reduce
Cognitive conflict
The minority creates conflict between what majority groups currently believe and the position advocated by the minority. This does not necessarily result in a move towards the minority position, but it does mean that the majority group members think deeply about the issues being challenged
Consistency of position
Research into minority influence has established that minority groups tend to be more influential in bringing about social change when they express their arguments consistently. To achieve this generally takes time.
The augmentation principle
If a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and so are taken more seriously by others. The influence is more powerful, it is augmented.
The snowball effect
Minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more and more people consider the issues being promoted until It reaches a tipping point, where it changes from minority influence to majority influence. At which point it leads to wide-scale social change.
Lessons from conformity research
Dissenters make social change more likely- Asch’s research demonstrated that when one confederate always gave the correct answer, this broke the power of the majority – this enabled others to dissent. This demonstrates the potential for social change, but shown in a laboratory experiment.
Majority influence and normative social influence- Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to the majority’s behaviour
Dissenter
someone who goes against the majority
Lessons from obedience research
Disobedient models make social change more likely- Milgram's research demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models. In his variation. When one confederate refused to give shocks, the rate of obedience in genuine pps dropped significantly
Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’- Obedience can be used to create social change – once a smaller commitment has been made it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour
AO3 EVALUATION: SOCIAL CHANGE
Research support for normative influences- one strength is that research has shown social influence processes based on psychological research, do work. Jessica Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people's energy use habits. The researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for one month. The key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people's behaviour. There were significant decreases in energy usage in the first group compared to the second. This shows that conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of NSI i.e. its a valid explanation.
COUNTERPOINT: however, some studies show that people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms. David Foxcroft et al (2015) reviewed social norms interventions as part of the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Collaboration. This review included 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use. The researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quality and no effect on drinking frequency. Therefore, it seems that using normative influence does not always produce long-term social change
Note
Flashcard