Social Influence

Conformity

Conformity

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.

Kelman (1958)

He came up with 3 types of conformity:

• compliance (shallow)

• identification (intermediate)

• internalisation (deep)

Compliance

To agree with a group externally but keep personal opinions. Temporary/superficial change in behaviour that stops as soon as group pressure ceases.

Identification

Behaviour/opinion changes publicly even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for. Value the group, want to be part of it.

Internalisation

Personal opinions genuinely change to match the group. Change is permanent and persists in private.

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

When the individual wants to appear more normal and be one of the majority, so they are approved not rejected - NSI is compliance (superficial/temporary).

Emotional process to do with desire to be normal/liked. Occurs in unfamiliar situations with strangers or friends.

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

If correct behaviour is uncertain, we look to the majority for guidance on how to behave because we want to be correct. ISI results in internalisation (permanent).

A cognitive process to do with people’s desire to be right. Occurs in ambigiuous situations and when decisions have to be made quickly.

AO3 for ISI (Jenness)

Research Support for ISI - Jenness asked Ps first alone, then in groups, then make a second guess alone the number of beans in a jar. (ambiguous task, no obvious correct answer). Individuals second private guess moved closer to the group guess (women were more conformist)

AO3 of ISI (Lucas et al. 2006)

Strength of ISI - Found that participants conformed more to incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult (with easy problems participants 'knew their own minds'). For hard problem the situation was ambiguous (unclear) so they relied on the answers they were given. This supports ISI because the results are what ISI would predict.

AO3 of NSI (McGhee and Teevan (1967))

Limtiation of NSI - Found that students who were nAffiliators (people who have a strong need for affiliation/need to be liked be others) were more likely to conform. This shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others - an individual difference not explained by a theory of situational pressures.

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

They developed a two-process theory, arguing that there are two main reasons people conform. They are based on two central human needs:

• the need to be right (which is ISI)

• the need to be liked (which is NSI).

In many cases of real-life conformity there is an overlap between ISI and NSI

AO3 of NSI (Asch)

Strength of NSI - He found many participants conformed \(Ps gave incorrect response on 32% of trials) rather than give the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote down answers (no normative pressure) conformity fell to 12.5%. This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them.

Asch (1951, 1955) Aim

To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

Asch (1951, 1955) Procedure

123 American male participants were tested individually, sitting last or next-to-last in a group of 6 to 8 confederates. They were shown two large cards. One had a standard line and the other had three comparison lines (one was the same length as the standard and they were all significantly different lengths). The group had to say which matched in 18 trials where in 12 (critical trials) the confederates gave the clearly wrong answer.

Asch (1951, 1955) Findings

Naive participants conformed 36.8% of the time. 75% of participants conformed at least once.

This shows high level of conformity when the situation is ambiguous.

Asch (1951, 1955) - Group size variation procedure

Asch varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 (total group size 2 and 16)

Asch (1951, 1955) - Group size variation findings

If there were two confederates, conformity to the wrong answer was 13.6%. If there were three conformity rose to 31.8%. Above three conformity rate levelled off so adding more made little difference. This tells us the relationship between the conformity levels and group size was curvilinear.

Asch (1951, 1955) - Group size variation conclusion

People are very sensitive to the opinions of other people because just one confederate was enough to sway opinion.

Asch (1951, 1955) - Unanimity variation procedure

Asch introduced a dissenting confederate - sometimes they gave the correct answer and sometimes a different wrong answer (but always disagreed with the majority).

Asch (1951, 1955) - Unanimity variation findings

In the presence of a dissenter conformity reduced on average to less than a quarter of the level it was when the majority was unanimous. Conformity reduced if dissenter gave right or wrong answer.

Asch (1951, 1955) - Unanimity variation conclusion

Having a dissenter enabled the naive participant to behave more independently

Asch (1951, 1955) - Task difficulty variation procedure

Asch made the line-judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison line more similar in length. Thus it was difficult to see differences between the lines.

Asch (1951, 1955) - Task difficulty variation findings

Conformity increased

Asch (1951, 1955) - Task difficulty variation conclusion

The situation is more ambiguous, so we are more likely to look to others for guidance and to assume they are right and we are wrong. This is informational social influence - it plays a greater role when the task becomes harder.

AO3 of Asch (Lucas et al. 2006)

Strength of Asch - Asked participants to solve 'easy' and 'hard' maths problems. Participants were given answers that (falsely) claimed to be from three other students. The participants conformed more often when the problems were harder. This shows Asch was correct that task difficulty is one variable affecting conformity

AO3 of Asch (Perrin and Spencer (1988))

Strength of Asch - Replication of Asch using British engineering students. One student conformed in 396 trials. This suggests Asch’s lack of temporal validity (1950s cold war America) or the Ps have individual differences as engineering students which affects the results.

AO3 of Asch (Fiske (2014))

Limitation of Asch - Argued that 'Asch's groups were not very groupy' so not like real-life groups. This means the findings are hard to generalise to everyday life.

AO3 of Asch (Neto (1995))

Limitation of Asch - Neto's research suggests that women are more conformists, possibly as they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted. Asch only tested American men and this shows that Asch's research has limited application.

AO3 of Asch (demand characteristics)

Limitation of Asch - Asch’s confederates were not actors, theres a potential for demand characteristics if aims were guessed.

AO3 of Asch (tasks)

Limitation of Asch - The tasks used in Asch’s study were not like tasks performed in day to day life involving conformity so its difficult to generalised the findings to real-life situations involving conformity.

Has low mundane realism/ecological validity.

Zimbardo et al. (1973) Aim

To investigate the effect of social roles on conformity.

Zimbardo et al. (1973) Procedure

Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University with 21 male student volunteers who were selected by psychological testing that showed them to be emotionally stable. They were randomly allocated the role of guard or prisoner. Prisoners were strip-searched, given uniform and a number which encouraged de-individuation. They were also tole they couldn't leave but would have to ask for parole. Guards enforced rules, had their own uniform with handcuffs and were told they had complete power over prisoners.

Zimbardo et al. (1973) Findings

The guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly. The prisoners rebelled within two days bu ripping their uniforms and shouting/swearing at the guards. The guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and by harassing the prisoners e.g frequent head counts, etc). After the rebellion was put down the prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed. Three prisoners were released early as they showed signs of psychological disturbance. One prisoner went on hunger strike and the guards punished him by putting him in a tiny dark closet. The study was stopped after six days instead of the planned 14 days.

Zimbardo et al. (1973) Conclusion

The results show social roles are powerful influences on behaviour as most conformed strongly to their role. Guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive and other volunteers also easily conformed to their roles in the prison (e.g Zimbardo himself felt he was actually becoming the Superintendent of the prison)

AO3 of SPE (Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975))

Limitation of the Stanford Prison Experiment - They suggested participants were play-acting and their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave. One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did. This suggests the SPE tells us little about conformity to actual prisons.

Counterpoint to the SPE lacking realism of a true prison

Participants behaved as if the prison was real, e.g. 90% of conversations were about prison life, Prisoner 416 believed it was a prison run by psychologists.

This suggests the SPE replicated the roles of guard and prisoner just as in a real prison, increasing internal validity.

Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Partially recreated the Stanford Prison Experiment which was broadcast on BBC TV, so has become known as the BBC prison study.

Their findings were very different to those of Zimbardo and his colleagues. It was the prisoners who eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience.

The researchers used social identity theory to explain this outcome. They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did. They actively identified themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned role as prisoners.

AO3 of SPE (Alternate explanation)

Zimbardo claimed participants naturally took on their social roles.

However this doesn't explain those guards who were not brutal. They argued only those who identify with the role of guard conform.

This shows that it is possible to resist situational pressures to conform to a social role, as long as the individual does not identify with that role.

AO3 of SPE (control)

Strength of SPE - Emotionally-stable participants were recruited and randomly allocated the roles of guard of prisoner.

The guards and prisoners has those roles only by chance. So their behaviour was due to the role itself and not their personalities.

This control increased the study’s internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity.

AO3 of SPE (Fromm (1973))

Argued that the power of social roles to influence behaviour may have been exaggerated in the SPE.

Only a third of the guards behaved brutally. Another third applied the rules fairly. The rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.

This suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences (e.g personality).

Milgram (1963) Procedure

Milgram recruited 40 male American participants supposedly for a study of memory. Each participant arrived at Milgram's lab and drew lots for their role. A confederate ('Mr Wallace') was always the learner while the true participant was always the teacher. An experimenter (another confederate) wore a lab coat. The teacher has to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock every time he made a mistake on a task. They increased in 15-volt steps up to 450V. The shocks were fake but labelled to make them look increasingly severe. In the teacher wished to stop the experimenter gave a verbal prod to continue.

Milgram (1963) Findings

12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts. Participants showed signs of extreme tension and three had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'. Before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they though the participants would respond. The students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts. After the study the participants were debriefed and in a follow up questionnaire 84% were glad they had participated.

Milgram (1963) Conclusion

We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else.

AO3 of Milgram (Beauvois et al. (2012))

Research support for Milgram - In a French TV documentary about reality TV contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presented to other participants (actors).

80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram's participants, e.g many signs of anxiety.

This supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority.

AO3 of Milgram (Sheridan and King (1972))

Strength of Milgram - They gave real shocks to a puppy where 54% of male participants and 100% of female participants delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.

This is a strength of Milgram's study as it shows research support and proves that it might be genuine.

AO3 of Milgram (Baumrind (1964))

Ethical Issues of Milgram - The participants in this study were deceived and Baumrind felt this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers e.g no informed consent possible.

Therefore research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public.

AO3 of Milgram (Orne and Holland (1968))

Limitation of Milgram - They argued participants guessed the electric shocks were fake and that they were 'play-acting'.

This was supported by Perry's (2013) discovery that only had of the participants believed the shocks were real.

This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.

AO3 of (Perry (2013))

Limitation of Milgram - She analysed Milgram's archive of tape recordings. She made several discoveries that undermine the validity of Milgram's findings and conclusions:

• The experimenter frequently went off script and would vary the wording of the four prods given to him and use them excessively (26 times with one participant).

• Participants often voiced their suspicion of the shocks and Perry concluded most of the participants realised the shocks were fake.

AO3 of Milgram (Haslam et al. (2014))

Limitation of Milgram - Found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the experimenter but those given the fourth prod disobeyed.

According to social identity the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience.

This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.

Milgram (1963) - Touch proximity variation

In the touch proximity variation the teacher forced the learners hand onto a shock plate.

The obedience rate drop to 30%.

Milgram (1953) - Proximity variation

In the proximity variation teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

Milgram (1963) - Remote instruction variation

In the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instruction by the telephone.

The obedience rate was 20.5% and Ps often pretended to give shocks.

Milgram (1963) - Proximity variations conclusion

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

For example, when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm done so was obedient.

Milgram (1963)- Location variation

The study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the prestigious Yale University (as in the baseline).

Obedience dropped to 47.5%.

Milgram (1963) - Location variation conclusion

Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and has authority (obedience was expected).

Milgram (1963) - Uniform variation

In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat (a kind of uniform). In one variation he was called away by an 'inconvenient' phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes.

Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of all these variations.

Milgram (1963) - Uniform variation conclusion

A uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.

Bickman (1974)

Research support of situational variables - In this study confederates dressed in different outfits:

• jacket/tie for a civilian

• milkman's uniform

• security guard uniform

They issued demands (e.g pick up litter) to people on the streets of New York City.

People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the confederate dressed as a civilian.

This shows that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.

AO3 of situational variables (Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986))

Strength of Milgram - They worked with Dutch Ps, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.

They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving order not present).

This shows that Milgram's findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures.

Counterpoint to Milgram having cross-cultural replication

Smith and Bond (1998) note most replications took place in societies (e.g Spain, Australia) culturally not that different from the US.

Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures.

AO3 of Milgram and situational variables (Mandel (1998))

Limitation of Milgram - Argued that Milgram's study offers an excuse (alibi) for genocide. Situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors.

It also permits others to excuse destructive behaviour as ‘I was just obeying orders’).

AO3 of the agentic state (Milgram)

Strength of the agentic state explanation - Most of Milgram’s Ps asked ‘Who’s responsible if the learner is harmed?"‘ The experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’ and the Ps went through with the procedure quickly without objecting.

This shows Ps acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour.

Agentic state

A state of mind in which the individual believes they don’t have responsibility for their behaviour as they are the agent of an authority figure.

Thus allowing the individuals to commit acts that they personally morally oppose. They may feel discomfort as a result of their actions but feel they are unable to resist the demands of the person in authority.

Autonomous state

‘Autonomy’ means to be independent or free.

So a person in an autonomous state behaves according to their principles and feels responsible for their actions.

Agentic shift

The shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’.

Milgram suggested this occurs when we perceive someones else as an authority figure.

Binding factors

Aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they feel.

E.g shifting responsibility to the victim, denying damage they’re doing to the victim.

Legitimacy of authority

Individuals accept that other individuals who are higher up the social hierachy should be obeyed, there is a sense of duty to them and these people have the right to punish/harm others such as in the case of the police force and criminal justice system.

This is learnt through childhood through socialisation processes. It’s accepted by most people that legitimacy of authority is needed for society to function properly.

Bickman (1974) (legitimacy of authority)

Strength of legitimacy of authority: Demonstrated legitimacy of authority in the real world using a field study, as 39% of the public would pick up litter is asked by an investigator dressed as a security ugard, but only 14% if dressed as a milkman

Mandel (1998) (legitimacy of authority)

Limitation of the agentic state - This explanation has been used to justify war crimes.

For example, Mandel talked about the men of Battalion 101 who weren’t given orders to shoot civilians in a Polish town but still performed the massacre, autonomously.

Shows agentic state is not required for destructive behaviour and it should not justify war crimes.

Rank and Jacobson (1977)

Limitation of Milgram - Found most nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose. The doctor was an authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into an agentic state.

The same is true for some of Milgram's participants. This shows that agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations.

AO3 of situational explanations for obedience (cultures)

Limitation of situational explanations - Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority.

For example, Kilham and Mahn (1974) 16% of Australian women obeyed but Mantell (1985) found 85% of German Ps obeyed.

This shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing.

DELETE

Limitation of situational explanations - Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority.

For example 85% of German participants obeyed.

This shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing.

The Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al felt unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder. He came up with the Authoritarian Personality and they:

• have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it

• express contempt for people of inferior social status

It originates in childhood through harsh parenting - strict discipline, expectation of loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism.

• also conditional love - love child depending on how they behave

Hostility is created within the child but cannot direct them towards parents so feelings are displaced to those weaker.

Adorno et al. (1950) Procedure

The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans.

Several scales were developed, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale). Examples from the F-scale (rated on scale 1 to 6 where 6 = agree strongly)

• 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn.'

• 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love and respect for his parents.'

Adorno et al. (1950) Findings

Authoritarians (who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous with the 'weak'. They were conscious of their own and other's status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status.

Authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes (prejudices) about other groups.

Elms and Milgram (1966)

Strength of the authoritarian personality - They interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram's original obedience studies. They scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.

This suggests that obedient people may share many of the characteristic of people with an Authoritarian Personality.

AO3 of authoritarian personality (can’t explain)

Limitation of the authoritarian personality - Millions of Germans in the Holocaust displayed obedient and anti-semetic behaviour but they can’t all have the same personality.

A more likely theory is that Germans identified with the Nazi state as authoritarianism can’t explain a whole countries behaviour. Social identitiy theory is a better explanation.

AO3 of authoritarian personality (correlation)

Limitation of the Authoritarian personality - The link between authoritarian personality and following orders is correlational. It could be a third factor such as lower income or poor education that result in both behaviours.

Christie and Jahoda (1954)

They suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology. But right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority.

Therefore Adorno's theory is not comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, i.e. it is politically biased.

AO3 of the F-scale

The F-scale questionnaire lacked internal validity. All the questions were written in one direction, meaning agreeing to all questions will label someone as authoritarian.

This is known as response bias.

Daniel Goldhagen (1996)

Argued the majority of the German people identified with the anti-semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews. This is a limitation of Adorno's theory because it is clear that an alternative explanation is much more realistic - that social identity explains obedience.

Greenstein (1969)

He says the F-scale is flawed as people who tend to agree to the statements (response bias) are scored as authoritarian. Therefore, explanations of obedience based on research with the F-scale may not be valid.

Resistance to social influence

Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Social support

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

Social support in resisting conformity

The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who aren’t conforming.

Asch’s research showed that the dissenter doesn’t have to give the ‘right’ answer but the fact that someone else isn’t following the majority which enables them to be free to follow their own conscience.

The dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous.

Social support in resisting obedience

The pressure to obey can be reduced if theres another person who is seen to disobey.

Milgram’s research shows obedient behaviour decreased when a genuine P was joined by a disobedient confederate (from 65% to 10%).

The P may not following the disobedient peer but the dissenter’s disobedience frees the P to act from their own conscience.

The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure.

Locus of control

A factor of personality is a sense of what controls their lives, this is measured on a scale ranging from high external to high internal locus of control.

Internals believed things that happen to them are mainly controlled by themselves and they are less concerned with social approval. They believe they:

• dictate events in their life

• are responsible for their actions

Externals believe things happen outside of their control. They believe:

• lives are controlled by external forces: fate, government

A high internal LOC results in an ability to resist pressure to conform/obey and a high external LOC does the opposite.

Continuum

LOC isn’t simply a matter of being internal or external. theres a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other end.

LOC role in resisting social influence

People who have internal LOC are more likely to be be to resist pressures to conform/obey.

• If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences then they’re more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs

• People with a high internal LOC tend to be more confident, achievement-orientated, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval. These traits lead to great resistance to social influence.

Rotter (1966)

He described internal versus external LOC. Internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (e.g doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work). Externals believe things happen outside their control. If they fail an exam they say it was because they has a bad teacher or had bad luck because the questions were hard.

Albrecht et al. (2006)

Strength of the role of support in resisting conformity - In a programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an older 'buddy'. These adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who did not have a buddy. This shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations.

Gamson et al. (1982)

Strength of the role of support for resisting obedience - Their groups asked to give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign. 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram's studies. This shows how supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority and reduce obedience.

Allen and Levine (1971)

AO3 of the role of support for resisting conformity - Only 3% of their participants resisted conformity when there was no supporter. But 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform. However only 36% resisted when the supporter clearly has poor eyesight and could not be relied on to judge the lines. This shows the explanation is valid because e would expect less resistance when participants believed social support was not helpful.

Holland (1967)

Strength of the role of LOC in resisting obedience - Repeated Milgram's study and measure whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed greater resistance). Only 23% of externals did not continue. Therefore resistance partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience.

Twenge et al. (2006)

Limitation of the role of LOC in resisting social influence - Twenge analysed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years, showing that people have become more independent but also more external. This is surprising - if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal. Therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence.

Rotter (1982)

Limitation of the role of LOC in resisting social influence - They pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations. In our familiar situations, our previous responses are always more important. Therefore, the validity of the LOC explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others.

AO3 of LOC and social support

Limitation of the role of LOC and social support in resisting social influence - 24% of people didn’t conform in Asch’s study, 35% of Ps refused to obey the experiment (up to 450V) in Milgram’s study and most guards refused to conform to the social role of aggressive guard in Zimbardo’s SPE.

This suggests many people are able to resist social influence anyway.

Minority influence

Refers to how one person/small group influences the beliefs/behaviour of other people. The small group (minority) attempts to change views through ISI, leading to internalisation.

Minorities changing majority opinions starts as a slow process. As more of the majority convert to the new view the processes speeds up in a process called the snowball effect.

Consistency

The minority has to demonstrate it’s confident in its view, by always doing the same thing. Consistency makes others rethink their own views.

Synchronic consistency

People in the minority are all saying the same thing.