Lesson 10-13 - Social Support, Locus of Control, Minority Influence and Social Change Flashcards
(28 cards)
Explain social support
An external factor, where you are more likely to resist conformity if you have someone supporting your view. You may be unsure of an answer for example, but if someone else gives an answer that is non conformist (regardless of if its right or wrong) you will gain the confidence to not conform to.
Asch’s variation results
If there was one correct dissenter in the group, conformity dropped to 5.5%, and if there was one incorrect dissenter, the conformity rate dropped to 9%. This shows that social support has an effect on conformity.
Allen and Levine (1971)
Supports the idea in resisting conformity. In an Asch-type study, conformity decreased if there was a dissenter in the group, even if they had problems with their vision and could not see properly. This shows that having someone who also goes against the majority is a very powerful thing
Milgram’s variation results
When there was another person (confederate) who resisted obedience to authority, the rate of conformity dropped from 65% to 10%. This encourages the person to follow their will on what they would like to do.
Gamson et al (1982)
They asked volunteers to participate in a paid group discussion about ‘standards of behaviour in the community’. They were put into groups of 9, and a consultant from a fictional company MHRC explained that they were investigating a oil company that fired a petrol station manager. The company said that the managers lifestyle was ‘offensive’ but the manager’s defence was that he is being fired for speaking out about high petrol prices on TV. The groups of 9 were asked to discuss this.
Throughout the discussion, it became clear that MHRC wanted them to argue in favour of the sacking, and the cameraman asked some of the members to argue in favour. They were then asked to sign a contract that allowed the video to be shown in court.
32/33 groups rebelled in some way, and 25/33 refused to sign. 9 threatened legal action.
This study shows that social support can be applied to real life as it had high ecological validity. Participants had no idea that they were a part of a study and could not show demand characteristics.
Strengths of social support
- Milgram’s variations showed drastic drop in conformity if there was one dissenter who disobeyed the scientist
- Asch’s variation showed drops in conformity in a study with a clear answer. If there was one correct dissenter, conformity dropped to 5.5%. If they were incorrect, it dropped to 9%
- Gamson et al study had high ecological validity as the study had mundane realism. Having a conversation about standards of behaviour in a community is not hugely far fetched, and it is unlikely that the participants knew that they were in an experiment, therefore there is a low chance of demand characteristics.
Weaknesses of Social support
In group sizes under 10, a dissenter is likely to have an influence on conformity of disobedience. It cannot work as effectively in masses of people. One person in a group of 100 people cannot have an influence on the majority, therefore studies of social support are limited to small groups. They may not represent group sizes in the real world.
Asch also found that if the dissenter then returns to the majority view, then so will the naive participant in his line study. Therefore the effects of social support are temporary
Who proposed Locus of Control?
Julian Rotter (1966)
Explain locus of control
An internal factor, referring to the degree of how much personal control someone thinks they have over their life. Internal locus of control means you have a strong sense of control over your life and you are less likely to conform. External locus of control means you think your life is the result of outside factors you cannot control, like luck or fate, and you are more likely to conform.
Traits of someone with a internal locus of control
They are self-confident, achievement oriented and have less of a need for social approval. They are more likely to base their opinions and actions on their own beliefs instead of pressure of other people.
Holland (1967)
Supports Locus of Control
Found that 37% of participants who had a high internal locus of control in Milgram’s shock experiment did not continue to the highest shock level, however, only 23% of participants with an external locus of control did not continue to the highest level. This gives validity to Rotter’s theory, as more people with an internal locus of control resisted authority.
Oliner and Oliner (1988)
A strength of locus of control
They interviewed non-Jewish people who have lived through the holocaust and the Nazi regime. They asked 406 people who protected and rescued Jews and compared this to 126 who did not. Those who acted and rescued them showed higher internal locus of control compared to those who did not.
Twenge (2004)
A weakness of locus of control
She did a meta analysis of 40 years of obedience studies, from 1960-2002, and she saw that people have become more resistant to obedience, but they now also show higher external locus of control. You would expect them to show a higher internal locus of control if they were resisting.
Nature of the locus of control questionnaire
A weakness of the locus of control
It is argued that the questionnaire may not be relevant in todays world as it was developed in 1967 where there was a world war just 22 years prior and there were very different viewpoints. It may lack temporal validity.
Explain minority influence
A type of influence that encourages the rejection of majority group norms. This achieved thigh the gradual conversion of the majority to the minority viewpoint. The viewpoint is accepted both public ally and privately and is a type of internalisation.
Behavioural characteristics of the minority
Consistency, commitment and flexibility
Consistency
The minority needs to be confident in their viewpoint over time and this will allow others to reassess the situation and consider them more carefully.
Moscovici (1969)
He sampled. Group of 172 female participants that were told they were taking part in a colour perception test. They were placed in groups of 6 and shown 36 slides. They were all different chases of blue. They were asked to verbally say out loud the colour of each slide. In one condition, 2 of the 6 in a group consistently said all 36 slides were green and in another condition, 2 of the 6 in another group said only 24 of them were green and the rest were blue. This is inconsistent.
In the consistent trials, the participants agreed in 8.2% of trials as opposed to 1.25% in the inconsistent trials.
This shows consistency is key.
Commitment
This is important because it signifies courage and confidence in the face of a hostile majority. This may persuade the majority to take them seriously. An example of this is the augmentation principle.
Xie et al (2011)
This study showed that there is a tipping point in the amount of people holding the minority position that is enough to change the majority opinion. Xie found that you need around 10% of the minority population to influence the majority.
Randomly distributed agents who were COMMITTED and immune to influence were used to try and change a prevailing majority view. When the fraction of the minority becomes 10%, time taken to change the majority view rapidly decreased. This shows that committment is a powerful tool of the majority.
Flexibility
As the minority are generally less powerless against the majority, they need o be able to negotiate their point rather than being too rigid. They have to still remain consistent.
Nemeth (1986)
A group of participants were split into groups of 4. They had to agree on an amount of compensation to grant a victim of a ski-lift accident. One person was a confederate and there were two conditions: one confederate argued that there should be a low compensation, but was very rigid, and another confederate argued for a low compensation but compromised.
In the rigid condition, the minority had little or no effect, but in the flexible condition, the majority was much more willing to strike a balance.
Martin et al (2003)
They gave a group of participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint. They were then split into two groups. One group listened to a majority group support that same viewpoint, and the other group heard a minority group support it. They were both then exposed to a conflicting viewpoint, not supporting this. The group who heard the minority group viewpoint were less likely to change their minds towards the conflicting view than those who listened to the majority.
This shows that minority viewpoints are much more enduring and they have a deeper level of brain processing.
Weaknesses of minority influence
There is a lack of ecological validity in Moscovici’s study as judging the colours of slides are not common everyday activities and cannot be applied to real life.
Nemeth (2010) all claimed that while there is value in minority influence research, it is still difficult to convince people of the vale of the minority viewpoint and they may fear a lack of harmony in it and belittle it. Nemeth noted that this may occur in a corporate setting. Therefore minority influence may not be as effective in some environments
