Psychology: Social Influence 2

Question 1

Define obedience

Answer 1

A type of social influence where an individual complies with or follows a direct order, usually from a figure of authority.

Question 2

Why did Milgram want to study obedience? (what inspired him?)

Answer 2

Obedience what authority figure is distinctive inspired by Nazi Germany and the hoffic acts at the concentration camps

Question 3

Briefly outline the procedure of Milgram’s study.

Answer 3

• Participants are told to shock the Confederate if they get the wrong answer
• Shocks get higher overtime
• The researcher purposely got it wrong
• See if the participant would obey

Question 4

Outline key information about the participants:
- How many were there?
- How were they recruited?
- How diverse were the participants?
- What reward did they receive for participating?

Answer 4

• 40 males
• On newspaper
• 37.5% were manual laborers, 40% were white-collar workers and 22.5% were professionals
• Paid $4.00 for one hour of your time

Question 5

What were the results of Milgram’s study? Include both qualitative and quantitative data.

Answer 5

• Every participant shocked the Confederate up to 300V (labelled extreme intensity shock). This is when the ‘learner’ pounded the wall and then stopped responding
• 5 participants stopped at 300V (12.5%)
• 65% of the participants continued all the way to 450V (labelled danger to life –> showed full obedience
• Qualitative data: participants showed signs of being under extreme stress - sweating profusely, stutter, bite nails / lips, groaning, fit of nervous laughter
• 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures due to extreme stress

Question 6

What percentage of participants were glad to have taken part when they received their full
debrief?

Answer 6

Participants were fully debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal. In follow-up questionnaires 85% said they were glad to have participated.

Question 7

What did Milgram conclude about obedience on the basis of his findings?

Answer 7

We are very likely to obey destructive authority even though we know it is wrong. The German’s were no different to us as anyone would react in the same way.
- Very obedient to destructive authority
- The German’s were no different to us (Not unique)

Question 8

How generalisable is Milgram’s study? Why is this a strength/ weakness of his explanation?

Answer 8

Milgram: 70% participants thought the shocks were genuine

Question 9

How replicable is Milgram’s study? Outline a replication that has been done and explain why
this is a strength of Milgram’s explanation.

Answer 9

Le Jue De la Mort (2010): replicated Milgram’s study on a French TV show and found 80% delivered maximum of 460V to an appearing at unconscious man –> findings are replicable

Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986): Used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants which involved saying very rude things in a job interview to confederates they thought were desperate for a job (interviewing). They found obedience of 90% replicable

Question 10

What implications has this research got for society? Why is this a strength of Milgram’s
explanation of obedience?

Answer 10

Evaluation: GRAVE

Generalisability
Reliability
Application
Validity
Ethics

Question 11

Evaluate the validity of Milgram’s research. Make sure to refer to Psychological researchers in your answer. If possible make it a double PEEL.
Hint: Orne + Holland, Perry, Sheridan + King, Hofling et al.

Answer 11

Individual validity: How realistic was the research. Orne + Holland (1968) argue that participants will have guessed it was not real and were simply responding to demand characteristics.

Sheridan + King (1972): Replicated but real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% male students + 100% female students delivered what they believed to be a fatal shock
–> good internal validity

Holding et al (1966): Studied nurses on a ward and found that 21/22 nurses obeyed to unjustifiable orders given to them by the doctors (e.g. to administer amounts of a drug that would kill someone) –> good external validity as situation had higher mundane realism.

Question 12

What are the three situational factors affecting obedience that Milgram investigated?

Answer 12

• Proximity
• Location
• Uniform

Question 13

What were the three variations of proximity? How much did obedience change for each of the
three variations?

Answer 13

• Increased Proximity to leaner: Obedience levels fell from 65% to 40% when both teacher and learner was sat in the same room.
• Increased Proximity to learner: The teacher was required to force the learners hand onto a shake plate, obedience fell to 80%.
• Decreased proximity to authority figure: When the experimenter left and gave further orders over the phone, Obedience fell to 20.5%

Question 14

How did Milgram vary the location of the study? How much did obedience change? Why?

Answer 14

• The original study was conducted in a psychology laboratory at Yale university. Many the participants commented on how the location of the study have them confidence in the integrity of the people involved
• Milgram then moved his study to a run-down office with no obvious connections with Yale (less reputable)
• Obedience rates dropped slightly, with 48% of participants delivering the 450 maximum shock (down from 85%)

Question 15

How did Milgram vary the uniform in the study? How did obedience change?

Answer 15

• The original study was directed by an experimenter in a white lab coat - a symbol of authority
• In this variation the experimenter was called away by a phone call and a member of the public was experimenter (in ordinary cloths).
• Obedience rates dropped to 20% which was the lowest of all variations

Question 16

What research support is there for Milgram’s situational variables? Why is this a strength of
Milgram’s explanation?

Answer 16

One strength of MIlgram’s research into situational variables is that it has research support.

For example, Bickman (1974) found in his field experiment in NYC that people obeyed instructions to pick up litter significantly more often when the Confederate was dressed in a security guard uniform than when they were in a jacket and tie.

This increases the validity to Milgram’s research into situational variables such as uniform, as the supporting research suggests that the same effect has been found in other studies conducted in different situations. Therefore, this is a strength of research into situational variables of obedience as it increases our confidence that the effect observed in Milgram’s research is likely to be true and therefore can contribute to our understanding of human behaviour regarding social influence.

Question 17

How has Milgram’s research into situational variables been replicated in other cultures? Why is this an important strength of his explanation?

Answer 17

One strength of Milgram’s research into situational variables is that it has been replicated in other cultures.

For example, Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants which involved saying very stressful things in a job interview to confederates they thought were desperate for a job. They found obedience of 90%, and also supported Milgram’s finding into Proximity, as when the person giving orders was not present, obedience significantly significantly decreased.

This is a strength of Milgram’s research into situational variables that affect obedience, as it has shown to be repeatable in other cultures and finds similar results. This suggests that the findings may be generalisable to other cultures, which increases the value of the research conducted, as it can be generalised outwards to more of the target population.

Question 18

How can you counter-criticise the research conducted in other cultures for the situational
variables? Why is this a limitation of Milgram’s explanation? (Bond + Smith)

Answer 18

However, all these replications that have supported Milgram’s findings in other cultures have been conducted in cultures that are not very different to America.

For example, Bond and SMith (1998) conducted a meta-analysis and found that between 1968 and 1985 only two replications were conducted in cultures that are seen as quite different to America-India and Jordan. Most of the replications have taken place in cultures very similar to America such as the Netherlands, Scotland, Australia ect.

This is a limitation to research into situational variables affecting obedience, as it suggests that the findings may only be true for certain culture. Most replications have been conducted in individualist cultures, but evidence has shown behaviour can be quite different in collectivist cultures such as China. Therefore, Milgram’s research is limited in the number of people it can be generalised out to, as the same effects may not be true in collectivist cultures. This reduces the usefulness of the research.

Question 19

Why might Milgram’s research lack internal validity? How is this a limitation?

Answer 19

One limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience is that it may lack internal validity.

Orne and Holland (1968) criticised his original study for being obviously fake and point out that adding in extra situational variables makes the study less believable. For example, for the uniform condition, it is unlikely a participant is likely to see the study as a true scenario when the experimenter leaves and is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram agreed that this was so unlikely of a scenario that it increased the likelihood of participants guessing the true aims of the experiment.

This is a limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience, as if participants guess affecting obedience, as if participants guess the true aims of the experiment, then they are more likely to respond to demand characteristics and act differently to how they would in real life. This reduces the internal validity of the experiment and means we can be less confident that the effect observed is a true one. This limits the usefulness and the extent to which this research can contribute to our understanding of social influence.

Question 20

What big event(s) sparked Milgram’s interest in studying obedience, and what was the common
factor amongst them all?

Answer 20

1) Massacre at My Lai
2) Abu Ghraib Prison
3) The Holocaust & Nazi Persecution of the Jews

Lower ranking personnel committing Hanoi’s acts for authority figures

Question 21

Define agentic state

Answer 21

• We do not feel personally responsible for our behaviour and powerless to change it due to being an agent (unable to control / decide our own behaviour) –> high levels of obedience
• This may make us feel morally strained and anxious but even if we do not want to obey, we do anyway dude to binding factors

Question 22

Define autonomous state

Answer 22

• We are independent and have control over our actions so act according to our own principle

Question 23

What is the agentic shift?

Answer 23

• When given an order from an authority figure who we see as legitimate we make and agentic shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state (defer to them)

Question 24

What are binding factors? Give an example of one in Milgram’s study.

Answer 24

Aspects of a situation that help individuals rationalize or justify their actions, thus allowing them to ignore or minimize the damaging consequences of their behavior.

Question 25

How can you explain the results of Milgram’s study using the agentic state explanation?

Question 26

What is legitimate authority and give some examples of people who generally are seen to have legitimate authority.

Answer 26

- We know our position and who is where on the social hierarchy due to socialisation - Those above us have legitimate authority and those below us do not. This is needed for society to run smoothly - we recognise the need to follow orders from authority figures.

Question 27

What do perceived legitimate authority figures lead us to do?

Answer 27

- We trust people to exert their power over us for good reasons, so we give up our independence --> high levels of obedience - It is recognising authority as legitimate that causes the agentic shift to happen --> it is their responsibility, and I am just the agent carrying out orders - Destructive authority exploit this to order people to commit cruel and torturous acts - Legitimate authority is demonstrated through visible symbols e.g. uniform and legitimacy of setting e.g. location

Question 28

What are some visible symbols that make authority legitimate?

Answer 28

- uniform - legitimacy of setting

Question 29

How can Milgram’s study be explained using the legitimacy of authority explanation?

Question 30

What did Blass + Schmidt (2001) find? How does this support Milgram’s explanation of obedience?

Answer 30

A video of the Milgram study was shown to Psychology students and assed them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner receiving the shocks. The students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the particular who actually administered the shots arguing he had responsibility due to his authority. This is a strength of the legitimacy of authority and agentic state explanations. The participants perceive that the 'experimenter' has authority - therefore they expected P's to experience and agentic shift therefore following orders and no longer feel responsible.

Question 31

How can you use Hofling’s study to evaluate LoA and agentic state?

Answer 31

In a study similar to Milaragm's that took place in a real life environment 21/22 nurses immediately obeyed the unjustified demands from a doctor to administer a drug at double the lethal dose to patients on a hospital ward. This is a strength of legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience because as they saw the doctors as legitimate authority and obeyed without question. However, it may not fully support the agentic state explanations of obedience. In Holding's study, the nurses obeyed immediately without showing any moral strain or anxiety. This goes agentic state explanations of obedience because as they did not show moral strain. Agentic state argues people are still aware of their behaviour and feel guilty but powerless to disobey. This did not seen to feel this so suggests the explication is limited.

Question 32

How can this explanation of obedience explain cultural differences? Why is this a strength of this explanation?

Answer 32

Many studies show that counties differ in the degree in which people are obedient to authority. e.g. Eilburn and Mam (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of participants went to 450V. However, Mantell (1971) found that 85% of German participants delivered the maximum shock. This shows that some cultures may be more likely to accept authority as Legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals than other cultures due to differing socialisation. Different societies are structured more or less hierarchically, and children are raised to perceive authority figures differently. This is a strength of the legitimacy of authority explantation because it has good explanatory power for a cultural phenomenon as it is able to explain cultural differences in obedience levels. As these difference in obedience levels exist it is important explanations for obedience can account for this and LoA does a less obedient Nations are simply socialised to see authority as less legitimate.

Question 33

How does the legitimacy of authority explanation manage to explain real life events? Why is this a strength?

Answer 33

A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanations is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre.

Question 34

Define authoritarian personality (AP).

Answer 34

A personality type that is especially obedient to authority figures. They are highly submissive to those a higher status and dismissive of those 'inferior' to them.

Question 35

What does dispositional explanation mean?

Question 36

What is the procedure of Adorno’s F-scale study? - Participant number, characteristic etc - What was he studying? - What did he use to study this?

Answer 36

- Adorno et al (1950) measured 2000 middle class, White Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups using a questionnaire - F-scale is the Fascism - Scale: submission to authority, usually political, and accepting violence as an acceptable way to achieve this - The higher the score, the more authoritarian so Adorno thought the more likely they are to be highly obedient

Question 37

What did Adorno find in his study? How is this important for obedience?

Answer 37

- He found a strong positive correlation with high scores on F-scale (authoritarianism) and prejudice.

Question 38

What are some characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality? (attitudes, cognition etc)

Answer 38

- High respect for people above them in social hierarchy (which leads to obedience) - Identify with 'strong' people - Hostile to people with less status. very status conscious - Fixed stereotypes about groups of people and conventional beliefs attitudes e.g sec, race and gender --> thought society was worsening and needed strong leadership to fix this - Fixed cognitive style (black and white thinking)

Question 39

What reason did Adorno give for people developing an AP?

Answer 39

- Adorno thought people developed the AP in childhood as a response to harsh parenting - Harsh parenting - strict discipline inducing physical punishment, expectations to be completely loyal, too high standards, high criticism and conditional love. - These experiences create hostility and despair in the child - who displaces these feeling onto the 'weak' (scapegoating) - They cannot take the hostility out on their parents due to fear (well-founded) of them who are above them in the social hierarchy - Leads to a dislike or hatred of these socially inferior through scapegoating --> is a psychodynamic explication

Question 40

How is Adorno’s theory a Psychodynamic explanation?

Question 41

What is acquiescence bias? How is this a limitation of Adorno’s explanation of obedience?

Answer 41

Greenstein (1969) - the F - Scale is 'a comedy of methodological errors' - e.g. every item is worded in the same direction - you could tick the same side of the page for each question and score as highly authoritarian - ACQUIESCENCE BIAS (the tendency to simply 'agree' with everything)

Question 42

What supporting evidence has this theory of obedience got? Why is this a strength of this explanation of obedience?

Answer 42

Milgram's research supports a dispositional explanation as not 100% went to 450V - suggests the variation in obedience levels could be due to personality Milgram and Elms (1966): Conducted an interview with a small sample of obedient participants who scored highly on the F scale Results supported Aborno's findings that the obedience was due to their fascist belief.

Question 43

How can we counter-criticise this supporting evidence? What might the 3rd variable be?

Answer 43

This was a correlation --> impossible to draw causal conclusions so cannot conclude that obedience was caused by dispositional factors e.g. an authoritarian personality 3rd variable problem --> it may be due to another variable e.g. level of education

Question 44

How does this explanation not account for mass obedience? Why is this a limitation?

Answer 44

Whilst it may be able to explain individual differences in Milgram's research, it cannot explain mass obedience like that seen in Nazi Germany - a whole nation cannot be more authoritarian

Question 45

How does this explanation compare to the situational explanation? Is this a strength or limitation?

Answer 45

Human and Sheatsley (1954) found that the Authoritarian Personality is more likely to exist among people who are less well educated and are of low economic social status This may be the third variable

Question 46

Define minority influence

Answer 46

A form of social influence where one person or a small group of people (the minority) influences the behaviour and beliefs of the majority)

Question 47

Why does minority influence lead to internalisation?

Answer 47

They persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to Internalisation, in which we agree publicly and privately with the minority view

Question 48

Outline the procedure of Moscovici’s blue-green slide study. What were the three conditions?

Answer 48

PROCEDURE: 172 participants were tested to ensure that they were not colour blind. In groups of 6 (3 other participants and 2 confederates) participants were asked to state the colour of 36 slides. All of the slides were different shades of blue. ➢Condition A: The confederates were CONSISTENT and called the slides green on all trials. ➢Condition B: The confederates were INCONSISTENT and called the slides green 24 times and blue 12 times. ➢Control Group: no confederates present and participants in a group of 6 stated the colour of the slides

Question 49

Outline the findings of Moscovici’s blue-green slide study. What conclusions can be drawn from this study?

Answer 49

Control group (no confederates) – only 0.25% of the participants reported any green slides. ➢Consistent group – participants answered ‘green’ in 8.42% of the trials and 32% of the participants in the group answered ‘green’ on at least one slide ➢Inconsistent group – participants answered ‘green’ in 1.25% of the trials. ➢CONCLUSIONS: Minorities can influence majorities. Minority influence is strongest when the minority is consistent in their views. When a minority is inconsistent in their views, they are less influential (and have little to no impact).

Question 50

What are the three important factors for effective minority influence?

Answer 50

1.Consistency 2.Commitment 3.Flexibility

Question 51

How is consistency important for minority influence? What are the two types of consistency?

Answer 51

Consistency: making sure your message is clear, you do not deviate from the message you give. This includes consistency among the group and over time. ➢Synchronic consistency: the whole group is consistent with each other ➢Diachronic consistency: you stay consistent over time

Question 52

What is the augmentation principle? Which process is that demonstrating of minority influence?

Answer 52

Commitment: you show dedication to your opinion or cause through some form of personal sacrifice (augmentation principle)

Question 53

Why do the minority also need to be flexible?

Answer 53

Flexibility: you listen to other people opinions or counter-arguments and are not rigid in your reasoning. It is a balance between consistency and flexibility

Question 54

How might minority influence have limited real-life application? Why is this a problem for minority influence as an explanation? S+C: can you countercriticise this point?

Answer 54

Limited real-world applications: research studies with clear distinction between majority and minority don’t reflect real life (it is not just the number of people that matters). Majorities normally have much more power and control and minorities are very committed to their causes because they have to face hostile opposition – research may lack utility

Question 55

Why might it be difficult to measure the effect of the minority? Why is this a problem?

Answer 55

The effect of the minority may not be apparent: People may be reluctant to admit their ‘conversion’- Moscovici found higher agreement with the minority when pps wrote down their response. Limitation as it may be difficult to test minority influence to validate it

Question 56

Research into minority influence uses artificial tasks. Why is this a limitation?

Answer 56

Artificial tasks: studies make clear a distinction between majority and minority influence but the tasks are artificial - real-life situations are more complicated→ lack mundane realism

Question 57

What research support is there for the idea that minority viewpoints are more likely to be internalised? How is this a strength of the explanation?

Answer 57

Research support for internalisation: Martin et al (2003) gave pps a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support. One group of pps then heard a minority group endorsing the same view. Another group of pps heard a majority group endorsing the initial viewpoint. Pps were then exposed to a conflicting view and their support was measured again. ➢People were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group ➢This suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect

Question 58

What research support is there for the idea that minority viewpoints are more likely to be influential when they are consistent? How is this a strength of the explanation?

Answer 58

Research support for consistency: Wood et al. (1994) did a meta-analysis of over 100 studies of minority influence and found consistent minorities were significantly more influential than inconsistent minorities. Suggests consistency as a key part of the impact of minority influence is valid

Question 59

Define resistance to social influence.

Answer 59

Resistance to social influence= the ability to withstand the social pressure to conform to majority, the minority or obey authority.

Question 60

Define Locus of Control (LoC)

Answer 60

Locus of control refers to a person’s perception of personal control over their own behaviour. It is a personality explanation

Question 61

What does someone with a high internal LoC believe about themselves? Give an example of how someone with a high internal LoC might interpret a situation.

Answer 61

An individual who believes their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts. E.g. I am successful because I work hard

Question 62

What does someone with a high external LoC believe about themselves? Give an example of how someone with a high external LoC might interpret a situation.

Answer 62

An individual who believes their life is determined by fate, luck and external factors. E.g. I am unlucky; I never win anything

Question 63

What type of explanation is LoC? Why? (situational vs dispositional)

Question 64

Who is the key Psychologist for LoC?

Answer 64

Rotter (1966) Locus of Control

Question 65

Which type of LoC is more likely to resist Social Influence? Why? Hint: there are multiple potential reasons

Answer 65

High internal locus of control is able to resist social influence. Feel more responsible for actions. 4 factors making High Internal LOC resistant to social influence: - More confidence: Don't feel like they have to obey - More achievement: Auriantated - more aware of their goals so will not obey if rules don't Aline with theirs - More intelligent: Less likely to follow - Less likely to be socially motivated: So don't care if theya the likely to resist

Question 66

Define social support (SS). (situational)

Answer 66

❖ Social support= we resist social influence due to the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey which helps others do the same

Question 67

How does social support enable someone to resist social influence?

Question 68

What type of explanation is SS? Why? (situational vs dispositional)

Answer 68

Situational

Question 69

Give a specific research example of how SS can reduce obedience.

Answer 69

Obedience: Milgram obedience dropped to 10% when participant was joined by disobedient confederate

Question 70

Give a specific research example of how SS can reduce conformity.

Answer 70

Conformity: dissenter in Asch’s study reduced conformity even when they gave a different wrong answer

Question 71

What research support is there for SS as an explanation for resisting SI? Why is this a strength of the explanation?

Answer 71

Asch (1951 & 1955) test conformity

Question 72

What research support is there for LoC as an explanation for resisting SI? Why is this a strength of the explanation?

Question 73

What contradictory evidence is there? How is this a limitation of the explanation for resisting social influence?

Answer 73

- Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over 40-year period - That data showed that, over this time span, people have become more resistant to obedience but more external - If resistance were linked to an internal LOC then we would expect people to have become more internal - This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance - However, the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside personal control

Question 74

How might the role of LoC be exaggerated? Why is this a limitation of the LoC explanation for resisting SI?

Answer 74

- Rotter et al (1982) found LOC is only important in New situations - it has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important - This does suggests that locus of control can explain only a limited range of situations in which people might resists social influence - This means that locus of control is not as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested.

Question 75

Define social influence

Answer 75

Social influence: the process individuals and groups go through to change each others attitudes and behaviours includes conformity, obedience and minority influence

Question 76

Define social change

Answer 76

Social change: whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours→ they become the new norm e.g. women’s suffrage, earth orbiting the sun etc occurs over a long period of time and often with some resistance NOT just minority influence (although is key): conformity, obedience + minority influence and often factors work together.

Question 77

What are the processes of minority influence in social change?

Answer 77

1.Attention is drawn to the issue using social proof 2.Consistency, flexibility + commitment 3.Augmentation Principle (show commitment) 4.Internalisation/ deeper processing of the issue 5.The snowball effect 6.Social Cryptoamnesia

Question 78

What is social cryptoamnesia and when does it occur?

Answer 78

➢Social change has occurred and the minority becomes majority view ➢It is a new norm, and often becomes law people have to obey ➢Social cyptoamnesia: people remember that change occurred but do not remember how it happened or why people had the original opinion

Question 79

Use a specific example to demonstrate how minority influence can lead to social change.

Answer 79

African-American civil rights movement in 1960s and 1950s 1. Attention drawn through social proof e.g. of unfair segregation such as through the example of Rosa Parks 2. Consistency- there were many marches that people attended over and over. Consistency of message and over time 3. Augmentation principle- people often risked their life for the cause. E.G many freedom righters were beaten and even killed 4. Snowball effect- Civil Rights activists e.g. Martin Luther King draw the attention of the majority and it starts to gather momentum. Laws change as result e.g. 1964 US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination 5. The minority view has now become majority view and social cryptoamnesia occurs→ people wonder how they ever had a different opinion

Question 80

How can social change occur through conformity processes?

Answer 80

Conformity (majority influence): ➢NSI- helps the snowball effect- as the new norm is developed it becomes something that is desirable. Leads people to convert to new viewpoint as they want to be liked or approved of ➢Environmental and health campaigns increasingly appeal to NSI e.g. reducing litter by putting messages like “others are doing it” which draws attention to it ➢ISI- part of the minority influence process is to draw attention to a social/moral injustice. People have more information so start to change to new viewpoint as they believe it to be the correct viewpoint ➢Environmental campaigns will often draw attention to shocking statistics e.g. the amount of plastic that ends up in the oceans and harms marine life each year.

Question 81

How can social change occur through obedience processes?

Answer 81

Obedience (majority influence): ➢Zimbardo (2007) argued obedience can be used in social change through gradual commitment→ obey one small instruction then harder to resist bigger one. Drift into new behaviour. ➢Obedience comes into play mostly once a degree of social change has already occurred and new rules/laws are introduced as a result ➢E.g. the directive that required businesses to charge customers for single-use plastic bags required people to be obedient + made it significantly more difficult not to be part of the social change.

Question 82

What research did Nolan et al. or Schulz et al., conduct? Why is this a strength of conformity being involved in social change?

Answer 82

➢Nolan et al. (2008) KEY STUDY hung messages on houses every day for 1 months. Experimental group messages focused on how all residents were trying to reduce energy usage. Control group message just asked them to reduce usage (no ref to other people) + found significant decrease in energy usage in exptal group- showing importance of NSI in social change Or Schulz et al. (2008) bath towel hotel study

Question 83

How is minority influence most likely to be indirect? Why is this a limitation?

Answer 83

Disagreement about whether minority influence or majority influence causes deeper processing￾key feature of Moscovici’s MI but Mackie (1987) argues it is majority influence as we like to think others (majority) agree with our beliefs so it causes more dissonance (self￾reflection) when we disagree with them, so we consider their reasoning + arguments deeper. Limitation as casts doubt on validity on Moscovici’s MI + shows theory as whole is conflicted

Question 84

How has the idea of deeper processing been counteracted? Why is this important?

Answer 84

The role of minority influence in social change may be overstated￾they often have a very indirect and delayed reaction. Cannot study cause and effect due to delay + indirect because majority is only influenced by most pressing part of the topic rather than the whole topic itself (e.g. gay rights but not trans rights- took much longer for social change there)

Question 85

What might be a barrier to social change? Why is this important?

Question 86

What methodological issues are there in research conducted about social influence processes involved in social change? How is this a limitation? Countercriticise: can you turn research methods into a strength?

Answer 86

Can always evaluate the research methodology of each individual part of SI processes in social change e.g. Moscovici, NSI, ISI, Obedience