01 Social Influence

Question 1

Define conformity.

Answer 1

A form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position and leads to compliance with that position.

Question 2

Outline compliance as a type of conformity. And give an example.

Answer 2

• Individuals change their behaviour and the views, attitudes and beliefs they voice in public so they are in line with the majority
• There is no change to privately held views, attitudes or beliefs
• Only lasts when group is present
• superficial and temporary form
  e.g. student during first day of school pretending to find others convos interesting even if they think they are dull

Question 3

Describe internalisation as a type of conformity with an example.

Answer 3

• Individuals change their behaviour and the views, attitudes and beliefs they voice in public to align with majority
• They examine their behaviour and beliefs based on what others are saying and decide the majority is correct
• Leads person to accept majority group view privately as well as publicly
• Deeper, more permanent conformity
  e.g. student on first day of school observing how people dress and eventually dressing and behaving like them because we value their dress sense and behaviour

Question 4

Briefly explain identification as a type of conformity and support your answer with an example.

Answer 4

• An individual accepts social influence because they want to be associated with a role model or group
• By adopting behaviours, attitudes and views so they feel connected to the group/role model
• Also identify with people we admire/look up to
• May agree with group publicly but disagree privately
  e.g. becoming vegetarian because all of your friends are but you still like meat

Question 5

State the two explanations for conformity.

Answer 5

• Informational Social Influence
• Normative Social Influence

Question 6

Outline ISI as an explanation of conformity.

Answer 6

• Person conforms because they are unsure of the correct answer or how to behave
• So they look to others for information/guidance
• Drive for conformity is the need to be right

More likely when:

• situation is ambiguous
• situation is difficult or complex
• situation is a crisis
• we believe others to be experts

ISI is likely to lead to internalisation

Question 7

Describe NSI as an explanation of conformity.

Answer 7

• People conform to ‘fit in’ and to be liked and accepted in the group
• People have a fundamental need to be liked and accepted
• We avoid behaviours that make others reject or ridicule us
• Research shows people like those who are similar to them so conformity is a strategy to ensure acceptance

More likely when:

• Situations with strangers where you are concerned about rejection
• More pronounced in stressful situations where there is a greater need for social support

NSI leads to compliance

Question 8

Evaluate NSI and ISI as explanations for conformity.

Answer 8

ADV 1:
- Research support for ISI: Lucas (2006)
- Asked students to giver answers to mathematical problems
- Conformity was more pronounced for incorrect answers when math problems were more difficult
- thus conformity is more likely to occur when situation is ambiguous or difficult
- Also students poor at maths looked to others as they believe others were experts
ADV 2:
- Research support for NSI: Asch (1951)
- Many pps went along with obviously wrong answer just because other people did
- Pps feared rejection so agreed
- Not ambiguous or difficult but still conformed due to NSI

DIS 1:
- Individual differences in NSI and ISI
- Some are more concerned with NSI - nAffiliators (greater need for affiliation) are more likely to conform
- Some are resistant to conforming due to NSI
- NSI explanation doesnt apply to everyone - lacks population validity
DIS 2:
- ISI and NSI work together in explaining conformity (not two separate processes)
- In Asch’s exp. conformity was reduced when there was a single dissenter
- We cannot determine whether this was because the dissenter provided social support (reduces influence of NSI) or if they provided an alternate source of information (reduces ISI influence)
- Not clear which is at work in certain situations

Question 9

Outline the procedure and results of Jenness (1932) study into conformity.

Answer 9

Procedure of Jenness (1932)

• Used an ambiguous situation
• 811 white beans in a large jar and 26 pps.
• First asked to individually estimate the number
• Divided into groups of 3 to provide a group estimate of the number following discussion
• Provided with second opportunity to individually estimate

Results:

• Almost all changed their original answer
• Males = changed by 256 beans
• Females = changed by 382 beans
• Range = 1800 to 470 (75% decrease)
  Demonstrates converging of opinions due to ISI

Question 10

Describe the procedure and results of Sherif’s autokinetic effect experiment.

Answer 10

Procedure of Sherif (1935):

• Autokinetic effect is a visual illusion where a spot of light in a dark room will appear to move even though it is still
• Pps individually asked to estimate how much the light moved
• Put in groups of three and tested (composed so that two have similar estimates and one has a different estimate)
• Had to say their estimate out loud

Results

• Over numerous estimates of movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate
• ## Person with greatly different estimate conformed to the estimate of the other two

Question 11

Describe Asch’s study in detail.

Answer 11

Procedure Asch (1951):

• 123 male US undergraduates each in seperate rooms with up to 8 confederates
• Experimenter displays two cards: one with a single vertical line and one with three lines and asks which of the three lines is most similar to other card
• 18 trials total, 12 critical trials (wrong answer)
• Control group only had real pps

Results:

• 35% of pps conformed to clearly incorrect majority in critical trials
• 75% of pps conformed at least once in 12 trials
• 25% never conformed
• Pps were interviewed about why they answered incorrectly - most said they knew their answer was incorrect but they wanted to fit it and didnt want to be ridiculed
• demonstrates NSI

Question 12

State the three variables affecting conformity according to Asch.

Answer 12

• Group size
• Unanimity
• Task difficulty

Question 13

Explain how group size affects conformity.

Answer 13

• Very little conformity with only one or two confed in majority
• Majority of 3 confeds, conformity went up to 30%
• After 3, no further increase to conformity
• Important only up to certain point

Question 14

Explain how unanimity affects conformity.

Answer 14

• If one confederate gave the correct answer, cormity dropped from 33% to 5.5%
• If one confed gave wrong but different answer, conformity dropped to 9%
• Only need single break in unanimous decision for conformity to drop regardless of correctness

Question 15

Explain how task difficulty affects conformity.

Answer 15

• Asch made difference between lines much smaller to increase task difficulty, so conformity increased
• Influence of task difficulty is moderated by the self-efficacy of the pps. (how competent someone feels in completing a task)
• Even in high difficulty task, pps with high efficacy remained more independent than those with low efficacy
• Both situational (task diff) and personality differences (efficacy) have an effect on conformity

Question 16

Evaluate Asch’s studies and variables affecting conformity.

Answer 16

DIS 1:

• Child of its time
• Study was repeated with engineering students in the UK in 1980
• Only one student conformed in 396 trials compared to 75% in Asch’s
• 1950s was a conformist decade in the US and was seen as the norm but society has changed greatly since
• Asch effect is not consistent across situations or time so lacks temporal validity

DIS 2:

• Artificial task and situation so pps are likely to show demand characteristics
• Task of guessing correct line doesn’t not reflect everyday tasks
• Criticised because Asch’s groups would not resemble groups we are a part of in everyday life
• Thus cannot generalise findings to everyday life so lacks ecological validity

DIS 3:

• Limited application of findings
• Pps were all men so may not apply to women
• Men were from US which has individualistic culture more concerned about self
• Asch repeated in China (collectivist) and there were higher conformity rates
• Can only be applied to US males, not women or other cultures so lacks population validity

DIS 4:
- Ethical issues: deception, psychological harm, lack of fully informed consent
- Pps werent aware of confederates
- Psych harm as they may be confused and stressed why everyone is giving obviously wrong answer

Question 17

What is conformity to social roles?

Answer 17

Conforming to the expectations of a particular social role and behaving in a way expected of that role e.g. cashier in bank is expected to be polite

Question 18

What was the procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 18

• Volunteer sampling
• Sample reduced to 24 male college students following diagnostic interviews and personality tests to eliminate candidates with psych problems, medical disabilities and history of alcohol or substance abuse
• Randomly assigned to role of either prisoner or guard
• Prisoners were arrested in their homes without warning, fingerprinted, photographed and booked
• Taken to simulated prison in basement of Stanford university
• Prisoners had all their personal possessions removed, given prison clothes, referred to by only their number, tight cap to cover hair (deindividualisation process)
• Guards had identical khaki uniforms with sunglasses to minimise eye contact with prisoners
• Guards were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order (no physical violence was permitted)

Question 19

Describe the results and findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Answer 19

• Prisoners and guards quickly identified with their roles
• Within hours, guards were harassing the prisoners in a brutal and sadistic manner
• Prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders and generally dehumanised
• Within days, prisoners rebelled but this was quashed by the guards
• Guards became increasingly abusive
• Prisoners became increasingly submissive (further identification with subordinate roles)
• 5 prisoners released from experiment early because of adverse reactions to physical and mental torment e.g. crying, extreme anxiety
• One released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger - thinking became disorganised and appeared to be entering early stages of deep depression
• Terminated on day 6 out of 14

Question 20

What can you conclude from Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?

Answer 20

People quickly conform to social roles even if it goes against their moral principles. Situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found as none of the pps demonstrated these behaviours previously

Question 21

What are the benefits of SPE study?

Answer 21

ADV 1: Good level of control over variables
- Chose the most emotionally stable males to reduce influence of participant variables
- Random assignment of roles so no experimenter bias
- High control over variables increases internal validity so more confidence in drawing conclusions about conforming to social roles

ADV 2: Real life applications to Abu Graib
- Abu Graib is a military prison in Iraq notorious for torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003-4
- Zimbardo argues there is the same conformity to social role effect
- US soldiers were victims of the situational factors
- Combination of lack of training, unrelenting boredom and no accountability to higher authority (shared factors in SPE) as well as the opportunity to misuse their power led to the abuse of prisoners in both situations

Question 22

What are the drawbacks of the SPE study?

Answer 22

DIS 1: Lack of research support

• The SPE was partially replicated in 2006 named the BBC Prison Study
• Prisoners took control of the mock prison subjected guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience
• Alternative explanation - Social identity theory - suggests the guards failed to develop a shared identity as a cohesive group but prisoners did

DIS 2: Ethical Issues

• Lack of right to withdraw due to Zimbardo’s dual roles as a researcher and superintendent
• One student wanted to leave the study so spoke to Zimbardo
• Entire conversation on basis that student was a prisoner in prison asking to be released
• He responded as a superintendent worried about running the prison rather than his responsibility towards his pps
• Deception and lack of informed consent
• Prisoners were unaware that they would be arrested in their own homes and would cause psychological distress
• However, there were extensive debriefing sessions and a series of questionnaires at versions time intervals following the study
• Zimbardo argues that the benefits gained about our understanding of human behaviour should balance out the distress caused by the study

Question 23

Define obedience.

Answer 23

Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order typically from a figure of authority who has the power to punish them when the obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Question 24

Outline the procedure of Milgram’s research into obedience.

Answer 24

1. Selected male pps through volunteer sampling and told them study was based on memory and learning
2. Participants were paired with another person ad had to drew lots to determine learner and teacher but draw was fixed so pps were always teachers and other person was a confederate
3. Learner was attached with electrodes to his arms
4. Pp was asked to read out pairs of words that the learner had to remember
5. If the learner got the word wrong or didn’t reply, the pp had to shock them and increase the voltage each time from 15 V up to 450 V
6. At 300 V the learner begged to be released and after 315 V there was silence
7. If the pp asked for advice or disobeyed, the experimenter replied with a series of standardised prods
8. If pp continued to disobey after 4th prod, experiment was terminated

Question 25

Describe the findings and the conclusion of Milgram’s study of obedience.

Answer 25

• Milgram predicted that only 2-3% of pps would shock to the highest level of 450 V because he assumed ‘Germans are different hypothesis’ was correct
• All participants shocked to 300 V and 65% up to 450 V
• Many pps expressed signs of anxiety: biting nails, nervous laughing fits, full-blown uncontrollable seizures for 3

This normal people will obey authority even if their actions may be detrimental thus ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis was not supported

Question 26

What are the strengths of Milgram’s study?

Answer 26

ADV 1: Good external validity
- Accurately reflects real life authority
- Hofling et al (1966) found that 21 out of 22 nurses were willing to exceed the maximum dosage of a drug followed by Dr Smith’s orders over the phone.
Despite not knowing if he was genuine and having to break the rules requiring a written authorisation form before the drug was given

ADV 2:
- Supported by replication in documentary about reality TV in 2010
- 80% of pps delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an ‘unconscious’ man
- Identical nervous behaviour exhibited: nervous laughter, nail biting and signs of anxiety
- Supports original conclusions about obedience to authority

Question 27

Outline the drawbacks of Milgram’s study

Answer 27

DIS 1: Low internal validity

• Subject to demand characteristics.
• Pps may not have believed in the set up and guessed that they were not really giving electric shocks to the learner meaning the study isnt’ actually measuring what it intends to, so it lacks internal validity
• Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s pps and many expressed doubts on whether the shocks were real or not
• Milgram himself reported that 70% of pps believed the shocks weren’t real

Question 28

Outline the ethical issues with Milgram’s study.

Answer 28

1. No full informed consent - participants weren’t fully aware or informed of the nature of this study so they were unable to give full consent. However experiment required that pps weren’t aware of true nature of study and deception was necessary - afterwards pps were fully debriefed and told the true aim of the study
2. Made it very difficult to withdraw from study - when pps said they wanted to stop, they were actively told to continue. However withdrawal was difficult, not impossible as pps were not physically forced to continue and 35% withdrew
3. Long term psychological harm: pps were put through extremely stressful situation where they were led to believe they had seriously injured or possibly killed another person. However, thorough debriefing was provided where they were told shocks were not real and reunited with the learner; obedient pps were told their behaviour was normal and many others also obeyed

Question 29

What are the situational variables that affect obedience?

Answer 29

• Proximity
• Location
• Uniform

Question 30

How can proximity affect obedience as a situational factor?

Answer 30

• Proximity refers to how physically close the teacher and learner are and the teacher and experimenter are
• In proximity variation, teachers were in the same room as the learner but could not see him rates dropped from 65% to 40%
• In touch proximity variation, teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question rates drops to 30%
• In remote proximity variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher via a telephone rates dropped to 20.5%

Question 31

How does location affect obedience as a situational variable?

Answer 31

• In location variation, study was conducted in a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting of Yale university labs
• Obedience rates fell to 47.5%

Question 32

Describe how uniform affects levels of obedience as a situational variable.

Answer 32

• Originally, experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority
• In variation, experimenter was called away due to phone call
• Role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of public’ (confederate) who wore everyday clothes rather than a labcoat
• Obedience levels dropped to 20%

Question 33

Advantages of Milgram’s variations

Answer 33

ADV 1: Research support

• Bickman (1974) demonstrated the influence of uniforms- 3 male researchers
• They gave orders to 150 pps randomly selected in New York: one wore a jacket and tie, one a milkman’s uniform and the last a guard’s uniform
• Pps were most likely to obey guard (80%) than the milkman or civilian (40%)

ADV 2: Cross Cultural Replication

• Replicated in other cultures/countries such as Spain
• They found obedience rates of 90% in spanish students
• So obedience is not just limited to American males but also females and other cultures
• He repeated study on females and found same levels of obedience as males
• *HOWEVER, h only replicated this in developed countries so we cannot apply findings across all cultures as developing countries may have different norms and values

Question 34

Weaknesses of Milgram’s situational variations

Answer 34

DIS 1: Lacks internal validity

• Uniform variation where experimenter is replaced by ordinary member of public rates dropped to 20%
• Even Milgram admitted this situation was contrived and forced and seemed fake
• Many pps may have figured out the truth and acted accordingly to their perceived aim of the study (demand characteristics)

DIS 2: The obedience alibi

• Without a doubt, Milgram’s findings support situational variables as factors affecting obedience
• Argued that situational variables are being used as an excuse or alibi for evil or bad behaviour
• Feeble excuse to survivors of Holocaust as they are saying that Nazis committed these atrocities because of reasons out of their control
• Every human has moral responsibility for their own actions and thus has control over their actions so behaviour shouldn’t be explained as phenomena entirely out of our control

Question 35

Outline agentic state theory as explanation of obedience.

Answer 35

• When acting as independent individuals, people are aware of the consequences of their actions and make decisions knowing that they will be held accountable for their decisions: autonomic state
• When in an agentic state (states where a person carries out orders with little personal responsibility), they see themselves under the authority of another, not responsible for the actions they take; they often carry out orders without question in agentic state
• Agentic shift is the change from autonomic state to agentic state
• People REMAIN in agentic state due to binding factors
• These are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour and reduce moral strain they are feeling and shifting responsibility to the victim

Question 36

Evaluate the agentic state explanation for obedience.

Answer 36

ADV 1: Research support

• Blass & Schmitt (2001) showed film of Milgram’s study to students and asked who was responsible for harming the learner. The students blamed the experimenter more rather than the participant
• They also indicated that the experimenter was a scientist - top of the social hierarchy- this had authority and pps were mere agents following orders

DIS 1: Doesn’t explain many findings

• 35% of Milgram’s original pps did not obey despite authority figure
• One of the 22 nurses in Hofling’s study did not obey despite Doctor being high up in the hierarchy
• Doesn’t explain Rank and Jacobson where only 2/18 nurses were willing to give the drug prescribed by the doctor

DIS 2: Nazis cannot be explained with this explanation

• Research evidence has refuted the idea that Nazi’s can be explained in terms of the agentic state
• Mandel (1998) stated that in one incident with the German Reserve Police Battalion, the men were not given any direct orders to shoot civilians in Poland but the Police still preferred to carry out the shootings
• Doesn’t explain obedience as police were not acting as agents as they were not given orders to short but did so anyway?

Question 37

Describe the legitimate authority explanation of obedience.

Answer 37

• Most societies are structured in a hierarchal way so people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g. parents, teachers and the police
• From early childhood we are socialised to obey certain legitimate authority figures
• We are taught to obey people with legitimate authority because we trust them or fear punishment
• e.g. the experimenter was a legitimate authority figure in Milgram’s study as we are socialised to treat them with respect, his white lab coat and working for Yale University
• Uniforms are often a symbol of authority
• Legitimate authority can be used for destructive purposes: Adolf Hilter and Holocaust, destructive authority when experiment prodded pps to continue shocking the learner

Question 38

Evaluate legitimate authority as an explanation of obedience.

Answer 38

ADV 1: Real life applications

• My Lai massacre in Vietnam War can be understood in terms of the power of the hierarchy in the US army
• 504 civilians killed, women gang-raped, villages burnt and buildings blown up
• Only one soldier was found guilty and his defence was that he was only doing is duty to follow orders
• He acted as an agent for his seniors in the US Army

ADV 1: Explains cultural differences

• Replicated study in Australia and found only 16% went to full voltage
• Mantell (1981) replicated study in Germany and found 85% obedience rate
• Cultural differences in perceived legitimacy of authority
• Displays how different cultures have different upbringings strengthening LOA explanation

DIS 1: Not all should be obeyed

• Sometimes we will obey an authority figure because of their status or power even if we disgree with their order as demonstrated in Milgram’s
• Harold Shipamn abused his legitimate authority and was able to kill over 200 people as he was perceived as a doctor who is high up in the social hierarchy
• Balance must be struck between telling children to obey authority figure and also encouraging them to question orders if they are destructive or making unethical demands

Question 39

Outline the dispositional factors for obedience as an explanation of obedience

Answer 39

• Authoritarian personality are more likely to obey authority figures
• They tend to be: servile towards people of perceived higher status, hostile towards people of lower status, inflexible in beliefs and values, conformist and conventional, dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity)
• People develop this personality due to receiving harsh discipline from their parents usually involving physical punishment
• Feelings of hostility created directed to weaker who cannot fight back
• Cannot express anger on parents as they fear them so they act in a submissive way generalising this behaviour to all authority figure
• The F-scale (fascism) is a questionnaire to measure authoritarian personality
• Adorno tested 2000 middle class white Americans and they unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups and found correlation between authoritarian personality and scoring high on F-scale

Question 40

Give two studies which support the authoritarian personality as a dispositional factor of obedience.

Answer 40

ADV 1: Research Support Miller (1975)

• Study asked people to shock themselves if they made a mistake in a learning task
• People who scored high on the F scale were more likely to shock the self again
• Shows link between authoritarian personality and obedience

ADV 2: Elms & Milgram (1966)

• They selected 20 obedient past pps from Milgram’s experiment and 20 disobedient pps
• They had to complete a MMPI scale which measures personality traits and an F-scale
• Also asked about their relationship with their parents and attitude to experimenter and learner
• High levels of authoritarian traits in obedient pps (high F-scale score)
• Obedient reported less close to fathers and perceived experimenter as admirable
• This supports authoritarian personality as a dispositional factor and supports F-scale

Question 41

Give two drawbacks of authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience.

Answer 41

DIS 1: Limited explanation

• Doesn’t explain why majority of population in Germany is obedient as not all Germans possess an authoritarian personality
• Alternative is social identity theory which explains obedience whereby German people identified with the Anti-semitic Nazi state and scape-goated the out-group of Jews

DIS 2: Methodological issues with F-scale

• Each item on the questionairre is worded in the same direction so it is easy to get a high score on scale
• All questions are closed so there is no room for explanation
• When Adorno did his interviews about relationships with parents, he already knew their score on the scale meaning he would have shown interviewer bias

Question 42

Describe locus of control

Answer 42

The extent to which they believe they have control over their own behaviour measured on a scale from internal to external.

• Internal locus of control believe their life events are a result of their own behaviours and actions e.g. badly on test is a result of inadequate revision
• External locus believes that what happens in their lives is outside of their control - determined by chance or other people so they have no ability to alter it e.g. badly on test blamed on bad luck or inadequate teachers

Question 43

Why are people with an internal locus of control less likely to obey or conform?

Answer 43

• More likely to be leaders than followers
• Less concerned with social approval
• More self-confident
• Believe they are in control of their own circumstances

Question 44

Describe the supporting evidence for locus of control affecting obedience.

Answer 44

ADV 1: Oliner & Oliner (1988)

• Interviewed 406 German people who sheltered Jewish people from the Nazis and compared them to 100 people who hadn’t
• Group that rescued them demonstrated an internal locus of control
• Internal are more likely to act than leave the situation to fate

ADV 2: Milgram (1974)

• Describe Milgrams
• Gace pps a questionnaire to measure their locus of control and found that 35% of internal locus control did not go up to 450 V but only 23% of externals did not continue
• Increases validity of LOC and confidence that it can explain social influence

Question 45

What is resistance to social influence?

Answer 45

The ability to object to the pressure to conform or obey that can exert powerful influences over people’s behaviours

Question 46

Describe a situational factor for resistance to social influence.

Answer 46

• Social support argues that when one person refused to conform/obey, it is more likely that other people will also resist social influence
• Less likely to conform is they have an ally who refused social influence as they break the unanimity of the group
• Presence of ally gives them independent assessment of reality and makes them more confident in standing up to the majority
• More likely to defy authority figure if they see a defiant role model refusing to obey as they challenge the authority figure’s legitimate authority

Question 47

Evaluate social support as a situational factor of resistance to social influence

Answer 47

ADV 1: Milgram (1974)

• Asked pps to deliver electric shocks to a confederate when he got a question wrong
• these shocks weren’t real but the pps believed they were
• 65% of people shocked the confederate up to 450V and 100% to 300 V
• However, when there was another confederate which acted a disobedient role model and refused to shock him, obedience rates dropped to 10%

ADV 2: Asch (1951)

• Asked pps to say which one of the three test lines was the same length as the standard line and were in a group of confederates who’s purposefully gave the wrong answer even when the answer was obvious
• Around 35% conformed in the critical trials
• Conformity dropped to 5.5% when one confederate gave the correct answer and acted as an ally
• Dropped to 9% with wrong answer so regardless of answer, a dissenter reduces social influence

DIS 1: Cannot be applied to real-life groups

• Social support is a strong explanation if the group size is under 10 people, then one single dissenter can influence conformity or obedience
• Real life groups are massive (in 100s) and having one dissenter will not have influence on the majority
• social support is restricted to small group sizes and may not reflect groups in real life

Question 48

What is minority influence?

Answer 48

Where very small persuasive groups or individuals can change the way the majority acts and thinks. Minority influence can lead to conversion where individuals change their private beliefs and views because of MI

Question 49

What are the behavioural characteristics of the minority group?

Answer 49

• Commitment: members of the minority demonstrate their dedication to their belief by making sacrifices (augmentation principle), taking risks or being inconvenienced in some way. This shows that the minority is not acting out of self-interest
• Consistency: minority repeatedly gives same message over time - this makes the majority reassess their beliefs and consider the issue at hand more carefully
• Flexible: Being non-dogmatic is where the minority show they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, negotiate and compromise. This will make the majority listen to the minority viewpoint and take their argument more seriously. As minority is generally powerless over majority, minority must negotiate rather than enforce their view. But too flexible risks being seen as weak and inconsistent

Question 50

Describe the procedure and findings of Moscovici’s research into minority influence.

Answer 50

• Told 172 female pps they were taking part in a colour perception task
• Pps were placed in groups of 6 and shown 36 slides with varying shades of blue
• Two of the 6 were confederates and pps had to state the colour of the slide
• In consistent condition, they stated all 36 slides were green
• In inconsistent condition, they stated 24 were green and 12 were blue
• consistent = 8.2% of time pps were swayed by the minority
• inconsistent = 1.25% of time pps were swayed by minority
• THEREFORE consistent minority is more effective than inconsistent

Question 51

Explain the drawbacks of research into minority influence.

Answer 51

DIS 1: Gender and cultural bias

• Moscovici (1969) only used women in his study so we cannot generalise the findings that consistency influences minority influence to men
• Research often indicates that women conform more than men so further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on men
• All pps are from America, so findings cannot be applied to other cultures e.g. collectivist/eastern cultures which are more dogmatic in beliefs

DIS 2: Experiments in labs

• Lacks realism as many tasks that are given to pps (judging colour of slides) do not apply to real-life task we encounter day to day so it lacks ecological validity
• Lab experiments are usually a collection of student that do not know each other and will never meet again but irl we encounter groups who typically share the same views and opinions as us rather than opposing
• More factors in real life which makes minority influence more complicated
• Difficult to convince people of the value of the dissent as people may accept the minority view on the surface by May become irritated by this view fearing lack of harmony so we belittle the dissenting view to contain it

DIS 3: Deception

• Pps told they were taking part in colour perception test in Moscovici’s study
• Lack of informed consent
• Although it is unethical to deceive, deception was required to achieve valid results otherwise if the pps were aware of the aim of the study, they could display demand characteristics and acted accordingly

Question 52

Define social change.

Answer 52

The change that occurs in a society and not at an individual level e.g. equal rights for homosexual couples, women gain rights to vote, smoking ban in public places

Question 53

What are the to social change through minority influence

Answer 53

1. Drawing attention to issues
2. Consistency of position - more influential when they express arguments consistently over time with each other
3. Deeper processing - other people not part of the minority start to pay attention to minority by thinking of the status quo and unjustness of it
4. Augmentation principle - if a minority appears willing to suffer for their view they are seen as more committed and are taken more seriously
5. Snowball effect - minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely as more and more people consider the issue being raised until it reaches a tipping point where the minority becomes the majority; conformity occurs through NSI or ISI and laws may be made (obedience to authority) e.g. Discrimination and Equality Act
6. Social cryptoamnesia - the majority knows a social change occurred but the source of the change and message itself has been dissociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia

Question 54

Evaluate the social influence processes in social change.

Answer 54

ADV 1: Research Evidence

• Nolan (2008) investigated social influence processes in the reduction of consumption of energy
• Hung messages on doors of houses every week for a month saying most residents were trying to reduce energy use
• In control group they did not refer to other residents in the message
• Experimental group showed larger decrease in energy usage thus conformity has han influence on social change through NSI

DIS 1: Barriers to social change

• Bashir et al (2013) found that pps were less likely to behave in an environmentally friendly way because they did not want to be associated with environmentallists
• They were stereotypes as ‘tree huggers’
• Thus social change can only occur if minority influence is not associated with negative and extremist stereotypes which are difficult to shift