social influence Flashcards
(112 cards)
1
Q
types of social influence
A
- conformity
- obedience
- minority influence
2
Q
what is conformity?
A
- defined as ‘Yielding to group pressure’ by Crutchfield in 1955
- it is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or person.
- Eg. fashion trends, opinions on people/things
3
Q
Kelman 1958 differentiated between 3 types of conformity, what are they?
A
compliance, identification, internalisation
4
Q
compliance
A
- superficial type of conformity
- conform for acceptance
- publicly change behaviours/opinions but privately disagree
- short-lived change, once perceived group pressure has gone, the behaviour/opinion goes too
- eg. fashion trends within friend group
5
Q
identification
A
- moderate type of conformity
- change behaviours/opinions for group membership or to adhere to a social role that is valued
- change is not permanent so considered public but not private, once need for conformity to a social role is removed the behaviour reverts
- eg. teacher caring about uniform whilst at school
6
Q
internalisation
A
- deep type of conformity
- genuinely accept group norms
- group beliefs become part of personal belief system (attitudes internalised), changing both public and private behaviours/opinions
- change is permanent, once the perceived group pressure goes the behaviours/opinions remain
- such as going vegan/vegetarian
7
Q
what is the Dual-Process Dependency Model?
A
it was created by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) to explain why people conform. It gives two reasons for conformity both based on our dependency on others: normative and informational.
8
Q
the normative explanation for conformity
A
(Dual-Process Dependency Model)
- conformity is based on our desire to be liked
- it occurs for approval or respect from other members of the group
- it does not lead to a person changing their personal opinions
- associated with compliance
9
Q
the informational explanation for conformity
A
(Dual-Process Dependency Model)
- conformity is based on our desire to be right
- it occurs when we look to other for information on how to behave, therefore, conformity happens due to a belief that others have superior knowledge or judgment
- it does lead to people changing their opinions
- associated with internalisation
10
Q
Abu Ghraib NSI/ISI example
A
(compliance, normative)
- reserve US soldier in Abu Ghraib prison stumbled across shocking images of his colleagues torturing Iraqi prisoners
- he knew it was wrong but it took him 3 weeks to hand int he photographs
- until he handed them in, he continued to laugh along with the group
11
Q
War of the Worlds NSI/ISI example
A
(internalisation, informational)
- American radio drama anthology series aired a halloween episode based on H.G.Wells’ novel in which the first two thirds were presented as news bulletins suggesting to many listeners that an actual alien invasion was in progress
- in the days following the adaption, there was widespread outrage and panic by certain listeners who believed the events were real
12
Q
evaluation of normative and informational social influence
A
+ supporting research for informational - Sherif (1935)
+ supporting research for normative - Shultz et al. (2008)
+ practical applications as we can use them to understand and alter behaviour in the real world, eg. the Abu Ghraib situation shows how the desire for acceptance can outweigh moral code
+ explain social change through creating internalisation eg. the suffragettes
- individual differences - nAffiliators who want to relate to other people and are concerned with being liked - so conformity cannot be explained by one general theory
- often both processes are involved which Deutsch and Gerard do not consider, this casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently
13
Q
Sherif (1935) aim and method
A
Aim
- to demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they are put in an unclear situation
Method
- lab experiment using the autokinetic effect (a visual hallucination where a small spot of light - projected onto a screen - in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still)
- participants were individually tested for their estimates on how far the light moved
- participants then tested in group of three where two of three had similar answers and the other was very different
- each person in the group then had to say out loud how far they thought the light had moved
14
Q
Sherif (1935) results and conclusion
A
Results
- found the group converged to a common estimate
- the person whose estimate was different to the other two conformed to the majority view
Conclusion
- the results show that when in an unclear situation a person will look to others (who know more/better) for guidance (ie. adopt the group norm)
- they want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information, observing others can provide this information
15
Q
explanation for the results of Sherif (1935)
A
(estimates on how far a light had moved, answered independently then placed into groups of 3 where two had similar answers)
- internalisation
- informational because they have a desire to be right
16
Q
Shultz et al. (2008) aim and method
A
Aim
- to investigate how to improve conservation behaviour in hotel guests
Method
- printed notes were placed in rooms that gave suggestions on what other guest were doing in regard to various things
- one of the notes told those staying that 75% of their guests reused their towels rather than requesting new ones
- they then measured how often new towels were required
17
Q
Shultz et al. (2008) findings, conclusion, and explanations
A
Findings
- it was discovered that guests were 25% less likely to request a new towel when these notes were left in their room
Conclusion
- people will change their behaviour based on perceived pressure to do so due to other guests’ apparent behaviour
Explanations
- compliance
- normative because they wanted approval from others
18
Q
what model do normative and informational explanations come from?
A
Dual-Process Dependency Model - created by Deutsch and Gerard (1955) to explain why people conform.
19
Q
Solomon Asch (1955) - aim
A
To investigate the extent to which an individual will conform to a majority who give obvious wrong answers
20
Q
Solomon Asch (1955) - procedure
A
- participants were 123 male students from the USA who volunteered to take part in a visual perception study
- each individual was placed into groups of between 6-8 actors
- they either sat in a line or in a circle with the real participant sat at the end (or one before the end)
- each participant was asked to identify which line (out of 3) matched with a given line
- on 12/18 ‘critical’ trials the confederates gave identical wrong answers with the real participant giving their answers after the confederates
21
Q
Solomon Asch (1955) - results
A
- overall there was an average 36.8% conformity rate:
- 75% conformed to at least one wrong answer
- 25% never conformed
- 5% conformed to all wrong answers
- Asch interviewed the participants after the experiment. He wanted to know why they had conformed. Through these interviews he found that 3 kinds of distortion had taken place (perception, judgement, action)
22
Q
perception distortion (Asch, 1955)
A
- believe they perceived it wrong eg. eye-sight
- don’t realise the others are wrong
23
Q
judgement distortion (Asch, 1955)
A
- aren’t sure if their judgement is accurate
- realise the other answers are wrong
- believe group to be right
24
Q
action distortion (Asch, 1955)
A
- normative conforming
- know the others are wrong but conform anyway
25
Solomon Asch (1955) - conclusions
- judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions
- there are individual differences in extent to which participants conformed publicly or privately
26
what variations did Asch do on his original experiment?
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
27
group size variation (Asch, 1955)
Conformity trials were carried out in groups of 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 15. There was still only one participant in each group.
For 1 confederate - conformity was 3%
For 2 - 12.8%
For 3 - 32% (similar percentage to the original experiment which had up to 7 confederates)
For 15 - slightly dropped but Asch didn't report the percentage
28
explanation/analysis of Asch's group size variation
> the more people there are in the group, the higher conformity is, however there is an optimum number after which conformity begins to decrease
> this number is somewhere between 3 and 15
> it could be because the participant starts to guess the aim of the study
29
unanimity variation (Asch, 1955)
- Asch decided to add a dissenter (rebel) into the group.
- When there was one confederate giving the correct answer: the rate of conformity dropped to 5%.
> This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief, then they are likely more likely to resist the pressure to conform.
> gives social support to give what you believe to be the correct answer
- When there was one confederate giving a different wrong answer: the rate of conformity dropped to 9%.
> This shows that if you break the group's unanimous position, then conformity is reduced, even if the answer provided by the supporter is still incorrect.
30
task difficulty variation (Asch, 1955)
- When a task is easy we are less likely to conform. As the task becomes more challenging, participants will begin turning to others to help them give the correct answer.
- When the line lengths were more similar (and therefore the task harder): the rate of conformity increased, although Asch did not report the percentage.
31
Asch evaluation
- population bias since volunteer sampling is often unrepresentative of the target group (also gender and cultural bias given they were all males from the United States)
- cultural differences in conformity - Smith et al. (2006) analysed the results of Asch-type studies across a number of different cultures. Average conformity rate was 31.2%. Individualist cultures had a rate of about 25% whereas collectivist cultures had a much higher level of conformity at 27%.
> conformity viewed more favourably
- low mundane realism and the setting has low ecological validity
- ethical issues of deception - perhaps feelings of embarrassment or that there was something wrong with them (their eyes for example)
- demand characteristics after multiple trials
- low temporal validity/era-dependent eg. Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated his research and found very little conformity
32
explanation of identification
Each social situation has its own set of social norms. Social norms tell us how to behave from situation to situation. Conforming to social roles involves identification. With each social role adopted, behaviour changes to fit the social norms of that situation. As an individual moves to another social situation, their behaviour will change to suit the new social norms. They are then playing out (identifying with) a different social role.
33
the hypotheses involved in Zimbardo's study
1. dispositional hypothesis (violence and degradation were found due to the 'nature' of the people within the system - both guards and prisoners)
2. situational hypothesis (saw violence and degradation as a product of the 'prison soil' aka the interactions between environmental factors such as the brutal and dehumanising conditions of the prisons)
Zimbardo designed an experiment in a mock prison with 'average' people who had no record of violence or criminality. If no brutality occurred, the dispositional hypothesis would be supported and vice versa.
34
Zimbardo (1973) - aim
To investigate whether dispositional or situational factors affected behaviour when it came to identifying with a social role.
35
Zimbardo (1973) - procedure
- 24 US male student volunteers
- observational study (overt, participant, controlled)
- all had physical and psychological assessments before participating and were deemed healthy
- participants were randomly assigned a role of prisoner or guard
- prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home
- deloused, given prison uniform and ID number (told not to use their names)
- given some rights eg. three meals, three supervised toilet trips, and two visits per week
- guards were given uniforms (clubs, whistles, reflective sunglasses) also not referred to by name
- guards were instructed to keep the prisoners under control but not to use violence (ultimately they were violent)
- Zimbardo took on the role of prison superintendent
36
Zimbardo (1973) - results
- within a day there were rebellions in which prisoners ripped off their numbers
- as a result they were stripped off their blankets and locked in their cells
- throughout the experiment prisoners were humiliated, sleep-deprived from being woken-up in the night, and locked in a 2x2 foot dark cupboard (incl. one prisoner who went on hunger strike and was force fed)
- prisoners rapidly became depressed, passive, and displayed serious stress related reactions
- began to think of themselves as real prisoners (identification) eg. asking for parole rather than to withdraw
- lasted just 6 days due to the psychological/physical harm being caused
37
Zimbardo (1973) - conclusions
- social roles appear to have a strong influence on an individual's behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive.
- social roles can be very easily adopted depending on the situation.
'Certain very powerful social situations, settings and structures can shape and transform the behaviour of the persons who enter them, suppress individual differences and compromise deeply held values.' - Zimbardo after the experiment
38
evaluation of Zimbardo's 1973 study
- unrepresentative sample (all male students from the US)
- may lack realism eg. Banuazizi and Mohaveda (1975)
> however, McDermott (2019) suggests that they did behave as if the study was real
- ethics, Zimbardo failed to protect them from harm, did not give them a right to withdraw
> on the other hand, the study followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee and no lasting damage was done
- lack of research support eg. Reicher and Haslam (2006) had very different findings - social identity theory
- there are questions over zimbardo's role since he played a superintendent, decreased validity since he could have affected the results
39
did Zimbardo's study lack realism?
- eg. Banuazizi and Mohaveda (1975) argued that the ppt were play-acting their role based on stereotypes rather than conforming, demand characteristics - doesn't tell us much about conformity to social roles in prison
> however, McDermott (2019) suggests that they did behave as if the study was real, 90% of prisoner conversation was about prison life and prisoner 416 expressed the view that it was a real prison but one run by psychologists - high internal validity
40
was Zimbardo's study unethical?
- eg. a participant who wanted to leave spoke to Zimbardo but he responded like a prison superintendent rather than as a researcher, failed to protect them from harm, did not give them a right to withdraw
> on the other hand, the study followed the guidelines of the Stanford University ethics committee, participants knew which rights were going to be suspended. Zimbardo also checked on the participants for years afterwards and concluded that no lasting damage was done
41
lack of research support for zimbardo's study
eg. Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated the study and had very different findings with the prisoners taking control and subjecting the guards to harassment - this could be a result of social identity theory with the guards not forming a shared identity
42
What is obedience?
- a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order
- the order usually comes from an authority figure who has the power to punish behaviour that is deemed to be disobedient
43
Is obedience to authority a good thing?
+ protects us
+ maintains social order
+ prevents chaos
- doesn't allow for individuality
- abuse of power
- blindly following authority
44
world examples of obedience
- the Vietnam war (Americans killing civilians)
- Burma 2007 - violent troops quash peaceful demonstrations against military rule
- Nazi Germany
- Jonestown religious cult mass suicide
- Hofling (1966) > Rank and Jacobson (1977)
- Bickman (1974) study on uniform and obedience
- Clement (2002) article about the a plane collision, obedience to people vs machines
45
what do the world examples of obedience show?
= authority figures can abuse their power, but often don't get their own hands dirty instead giving orders and allowing others to take responsibility
= those obeying often separate themselves from the actions in order to feel less responsible
= blind obedience in the Hofling study however the conflicting Rank and Jacobson study is reassuring
= Bickman shows a uniform is a symbol of power and results in higher obedience from others
= Clement's article shows that we tend to trust humans over machines despite an increased human tendency to error - machines are not generally seen as our authority
46
background to the 1963 Milgram experiment
- interest was in explaining how and why ordinary people obey their leader's orders to torture and kill innocent human beings.
- Adolf Eichmann was on trial and had surprised people with his likeable nature and claims to have just been following orders
- one of the first studies to consider why ordinary people could be convinced to commit such atrocities
- Jewish himself and wanted to see whether people would risk someone's life if they were ordered to do so
- the Yale study was originally supposed to be a pilot before a real study in Germany however the results were dramatic enough
47
Milgram (1963) aim
To see whether individuals would obey orders, given by an authority figure, that would result in negative consequences that go against their moral codes.
48
Milgram (1963) procedure
- 40 American male volunteers aged 20-50 with a range of jobs from unskilled to professional, paid £4.50
- they were recruited for an experiment into how punishment affects learning
- second "participant", believed they were randomly allocate to teacher and learner (but it was fixed)
- confederate "experimenter"
- learner strapped to a chair whilst tested on their recall, after each wrong answer a shock would be administered by the teacher (increasing the level by 15v each time and saying the number of volts before administering it)
- 30 switches from 15v-450v
- fake shocks
- the "learner" gave mostly wrong answers deliberately, at 150v he began complaining and claimed he had a heart condition, at 300v he refused to answer questions, at 330v he fell silent
- when the "teacher" refused to give a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued:
1. 'Please continue.'
2. 'The experiment requires you to continue.'
3. 'It is absolutely essential that you continue.'
4. 'You have no other choice but to continue.'
49
Milgram (1963) results and conc.
- all participants continued to 300v when the "learner" refused to answer
- 65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450v
Conclusions - Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is engrained in all of us.
50
evaluation of the Milgram study
+ repeatable (controlled experiment with a standardised procedure) and has increased validity
+ research support eg. Sheridan and King (1972)
- lacks population validity so findings aren't generalisable (40 American volunteers - gender and culture bias, and influence of the volunteer sample)
- low internal validity - 75% said they believed the shocks were genuine eg. Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and concluded they only half thought the shocks were real
- low mundane realism (experiment setting)
- ethical issues - deception and psychological harm, right to withdraw (the prods telling them to continue)
51
Sheridan and King (1972)
Conducted similar study where real electric shocks were given to a puppy. Despite real shocks being given, 54% of the male students and 100% of the female students delivered what they thought were fatal shocks (whilst being real, they weren't fatal). This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine as similar results have been found even when the shocks are real.
52
Burger (2009)
- more ethical and more modern version
- worked on the principle that if participants are prepared to go beyond 150v after discovering the learner has a heart condition, we can assume they would go all the way to 450v and spare them the distress
- the script resembles Milgram's but the test shock that the participant receives is only 15v rather than Milgram's painful 45v, still going up in 15v intervals
- learner indicates that he has a "slight heart condition" but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful
- at 75v the learner starts making sounds of pain
- at 150v the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains
- If the teacher moves to deliver the 165v shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.
- Burgers results were almost identical to Milgram's - suggesting the findings do still apply today as much as they did in the 1960s.
53
The Game of Death (2010)
A documentary about reality TV, presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram's study. The participant believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show called 'la zone extreme'. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (when ordered by a presenter) to other participants (who were actors) in front of a studio audience. 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock and displayed behaviour almost identical to that seen in Milgram's experiment (nail biting, nervous laughter, etc.)
54
Derren Brown (2010)
There are a few parts to the heist. One of them is based on Milgram. Ppts are tested on the limits of their responsiveness to authority. They are organised to take part in what they think is a piece of unfilmed academic research at a university, supposedly looking into the effects of punishment on learning. In fact it was a re-enactment of Milgram's experiment.
55
three situational variables tested by Milgram
1. proximity
2. location
3. uniform
56
proximity variation of the milgram experiment
1. the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure.
2. the physical closeness or distance to the 'learner'.
- the closer the authority figure, the more pressure you feel to obey
- the closer you are to an individual you are acting against, the more responsibility you will feel for your actions towards them. This makes us less likely to obey
> teacher and learner in the same room (40%)
> instructions via the telephone (21%)
> forces hand onto shock plate (30%)
57
location variation of the milgram experiment
- location not only provides us with legitimacy of the situation but of the authority too
- If we perceive the location to be one in which the individual is the authority figure we are more likely to obey them
> original study in Yale (65%)
> run down office block (48%)
58
uniform variation of the milgram experiment
- People in a position of authority often have a specific 'outfit' that is symbolic of their authority.
- If the individual is wearing a 'symbol' of authority, then we are more likely to obey them
- symbols can come in many forms but often items of clothing are the clearest forms EG. differing occupations can be identified by their attire allowing us to differentiate between authority figures.
> original study, lab coat (65%)
> experimenter was called away and an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes takes over (20%)
59
evaluation of situational variables (Milgram experiment)
+ Bickman's (1974) 'power of the uniform' study, increased validity of conclusions about uniform due to research support
- could be considered controversial because it excuses behaviour and removes personal responsibility, especially given the study attempted to explain behaviour in the Holocaust
- Orne and Holland (1968) indicated that demand characteristics were even more profound in the situational variables, low internal validity (are we truly measuring obedience?) valid conclusions about normal behaviour cannot be made
- conflicting evidence - Hofling's study on nurses suggests that situation/location had more power than proximity (instructions over the phone)
60
agentic state theory
- Milgram suggested that destructive obedience may occur due to a person not taking responsibility for their actions
- they may believe they are acting on behalf of someone else - that they are acting as an 'agent', powerless to disobey
- Milgram (1974) explained the behaviour of his participants by suggesting people have two states of behaviour:
1. the autonomous state
2. the agentic state
- when we feel personally responsible, we are autonomous and act accordingly
- if anything detracts from our personal responsibility then we are happy for an agentic shift to take place
61
the autonomous state
people direct their own actions and take personal responsibility
62
the agentic state
people act as 'agents' for others. Responsibility belongs to those giving orders - usually someone in higher power/authority positions
63
why do people remain in an agentic state?
- binding factors
- many of Milgram's participants wanted to quit but seemed unable to do so. Binding factors (aspects of the situation) allowed the individuals to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain felt
- These may include shifting the blame to the victim eg. "they were foolish to volunteer" or denying damage to the victim
64
legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
We are more likely to obey someone when an authority is legitimately guarded as an authority figure by society eg. police officers or teachers. Society holds a social hierarchy which allows us to know our own and others positions in society.
65
What makes an authority legitimate?
> an individual's status/place in a social hierarchy
> the context and setting in which the order has come from - does the individual belong to an institution? Where are they giving the order? Does the order make sense in the context?
> order - does the order seem reasonable given their authority?
> visible signs of authority eg. uniform and proximity
66
legitimacy of authority examples in Milgram's experiment
- original experiment (65% - Yale, lab coat)
- experimenter replaced by civilian (20%)
- experiment conducted in a run-down office building (48%)
- experimenter gives instructions over the phone (21%)
67
destructive authority
Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. History has too often shown that powerful leaders (such as Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.
68
evaluation of the agentic state theory and legitimacy of authority to explain obedience
+ My Lai massacre (Vietnam War) - an example of legitimacy of authority in real life
+ Blass and Schmitt (2001) - students blame the 'experimenter' for what happened to 'Mr Wallace' in Milgram's experiment
- neither can explain instances of disobedience when hierarchy is clear and accepted (Rank and Jacobson)
- too reductive/incomplete - why do people obey even when not given direct orders?
- don't consider dispositional factors - why didn't all of the participants in Milgram's study obey despite identical situations
69
What did Adorno (1950) find out about those with authoritarian personality's?
They created a scale to measure those with this personality to 'obey' and found individuals:
- show extreme respect and submissiveness to authority/status but hostility to those of an inferior/lower status
- are rigid in their opinions and beliefs (view the world in black and white)
- are conventional and upholding of traditional values
70
What did Adorno argue was the cause of an authoritarian personality?
- harsh parenting
- strict discipline - sometimes physical
- an expectation of absolute loyalty
- severe criticisms of failings
- conditional love
This creates resentment and hostility in a child but this cannot be expressed to the parents (due to fear of punishment) so fears are displaced onto others perceived as weaker (known as obedience).
71
Adorno et al. (1950) procedure
- studied more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
- they developed several measurement scales, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale) which is still used to measure Authoritarian Personality
- Eg. 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn' and 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents'
72
Adorno et al. (1950) findings
People with authoritarian leanings (those who scored highly) identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'. They were very conscious of status (theirs and others) and showed extreme respect and servility to those of higher status.
Adorno et al. also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others) in which there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people. They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups. Adorno et al. found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
73
evaluation of the Authoritarian Personality explanation
+ research support eg. Elms and Milgram (1966)
- the F-Scale has been critiqued for response bias
- influence of social situations not accounted for
- it cannot explain mass obedience such as that which was seen in Nazi Germany
74
resisting social influence
- the ability for people to withstand pressure to conform or obey authority
1. Locus of Control
2. Social Support
75
what is locus of control?
- a continuum with two opposing ends
- the majority of people will sit somewhere in the middle
- either internal or external and refers to the extent to which we feel we have control over the events that influence our lives
- this leads us to be either more of less influenced by obedience and/or conformity
76
Rotter (1966)
- developed a scale to measure an individual's locus of control
- suggested locus of control only really comes into play in novel situations. In familiar situations past experience is more influential in directing behaviour
- Eg. if you have obeyed/conformed in a similar situation before, you will most likely to do it again - even if you have an internal locus of control.
77
external locus of control
- you are ultimately at the mercy of external events
- more likely to obey and/or conform
- individuals rarely take responsibility for events
- associated with poorer mental health
- can feel helpless in unexpected social situations/events
78
internal locus of control
- you are ultimately in control of your life
- strongly live by the idea that you have a choice whether to obey and/or conform
- associated with healthy behaviour/good mental health
- do not feel helpless in unexpected events/situations
79
Which locus of control is more likely make someone resist conformity?
People with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist conformity because they:
- take responsibility for their actions
- base their decisions on their own beliefs rathe than depending on the opinions or decisions of others
- have higher self confidence
80
social support
- If an individual has social support from others then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform or obey
- Social support is often seen in the form of rebels. It provides you with alternative options
- The more you are exposed, the more these alternative options become real solutions.
81
social support in Asch's research
- breaks the unanimous position of the majority
- supporters and dissenters raise the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate ways of thinking and responding
- presence of an 'ally' provides the individual with more confidence, even if their answer is different
> rebel participant gave a different wrong answer, conformity reduced to 9%
> rebel participant gave the correct answer, conformity reduced to 5%
82
social support in Milgram's research
- individuals are generally more confident in their ability to resist authority figures if they can find an ally who is willing to join them in opposition
- disobedient peers can therefore act as role models on which an individual can shape their own behaviour
> two 'rebel teachers', obedience reduces to 10%
83
evaluation of resistance to social influence
+ real world evidence eg. in 1943, the Rosenstrasse protest had women facing death to demand the release of their husbands and sons (2000) who were being held by the Gestapo
+ practical applications, eg. helping young people resist social influence to smoke when pregnant using social support in the form of an older mentor or 'buddy'
- Twenge et al. (2004) challenges the link between internal LOC and resisting behaviour as research has found that young Americans are more external but also more resistant to obedience
- Rotter pointed out that LOC only comes into play in some situations (very little influence in familiar situations) - may be more complex
84
minority influence
One person or a small group influence the beliefs/behaviour of others. Internalisation of the minority's view by members of the majority. Joining a minority view involves internalisation, the strongest form of conformity.
85
Moscovici et al. (1969) - aim
To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Moscovici (1969) conducted a re-run of Asch's experiment but in reverse.
86
Moscovici et al. (1969) - procedure
- two confederates together with four genuine participants
- participants were first given eye tests to ensure they were not colour-blind and were under the impression that they were taking part in a colour perception test
- shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud
- in the first part of the experiment, the two confederates answered green for each side, they were totally consistent
- in the second part they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times, they were inconsistent
87
Moscovici et al. (1969) - findings
- in condition one, the consistent minority influenced the participants to say 'green' on 8.42% of the trials
- in the second condition, only 1.25% said green
- a third of all participants gave the same answer as the minority on at least one trial
88
Moscovici et al. (1969) - conclusions
Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways eg. consistent behaviour style
89
three factors needed for a powerful minority
1. consistency
2. commitment
3. flexibility
90
consistency
When people are first exposed to the minority with a different view, they assume the minority is in error. However, if the minority adopt a consistent approach, others will assess the situation and consider the issue more carefully. Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs both over time and between all the individuals in the minority. There are two types:
1. synchronic consistency
2. diachronic consistency
91
two types of consistency
1. synchronic consistency - people in the minority are all saying the same thing
2. diachronic consistency - they have been saying the same thing for a long time
92
commitment
Commitment requires you to make personal sacrifices and behave as you want others to behave. Minorities might sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views. To be successful, the minority must be uncompromisingly and consistently to their position. They must be:
- certain
- confident
- courageous
Commitment must remain in the face of a hostile majority.
93
flexibility
Minorities are typically powerless. In such, they must be prepared to negotiate their position rather than trying to enforce it. Being extremely consistent and repeating the same arguments again and again may be seen as too rigid, unbending, and inflexible. Instead they need to be considered as moderate, cooperative, and reasonable. This flexibility must be balanced:
- too rigid - narrow-mindedness
- too flexible - inconsistent
94
process of change due to minority influence
over time, increasing numbers of the majority might 'convert' to the minority view. The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - this is known as the snowball effect. The point in which a minority becomes a majority is known as the tipping point. In this sense, minority influence can lead to social change.
95
evaluation of minority influence
+ research support eg. Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) supports flexibility
- Moscovici doesn't reflect real life, low mundane realism
- ethical issues (deception however it was necessary in order to test real behaviour)
- research into minority influence has an over-focus on consistency, Nemeth et al. (1974) argued that over-consistency could reduce influence
96
Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987)
used a simulated jury situation in which they were determining the amount of compensation to be paid to someone involved in a ski-lift accident. When a confederate put forward an alternative POV and refused to change his position, this had no effect on other group members however a confederate who compromised and therefore showed some degree of shift towards the majority did exert an influence on the rest of the group.
> flexibility
97
Nemeth et al (1974)
performed a variation on Moscovici's study with three conditions. Participants were also allowed to respond by naming all the colours they saw, not just one. Influence was highest when confederates called the bright slides green and the dimmer slides green-blue.
> suggested that consistency is not the only factor as condition 3 (where confederates called every slide green) did not have the highest influence
> flexibility could perhaps be equally or more important
> there might be other factors in terms of uncertainty
98
social change
the act of a minority view being adopted by the majority (can include minority influence)
99
processes of social change
1. drawing attention to a different view
2. consistency
3. deeper processing of the new view
4. augmentation principle
5. snowball effect
6. social cryptoamnesia
100
drawing attention to a different view
This might involve raising awareness of the issue and might be achieved by providing social proof of the issue, providing an alternative view. Eg. protests during the civil rights movement
101
consistency
It is a VERY important key to success. All members must have and actively portray the same message over time and with each other. Eg. people in the civil rights movement maintained their aims and message over time
102
consistency
It is a VERY important key to success. All members must have and actively portray the same message over time and with each other. Eg. people in the civil rights movement maintained their aims and message over time
103
deeper processing of the new view
It may be that many individuals have simply not considered the issue but automatically accepted the status quo. Having a different view brought to their attention coupled with the group's consistent message, may cause them to begin questioning their own stance. Eg. people may have begun questioning their own and others' rights
104
augmentation principle
Committed minorities (eg. those who risk themselves for the cause) have an effect on the majority through this principle. It means the majority value the importance of the cause. Eg. Rosa Parks not giving up her seat, knowing there would be consequences
105
the snowball effect
Continuing to press for change and gain the attention of important people. The new stance may then be backed up by law. Individuals will then begin complying to the view and obey their authorities on the matter. It has now switched from a minority to a majority view point. Eg. The Fair Housing Act became law just days after the King's assassination. It prevented housing discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, and religion.
106
social cryptoamnesia
People know change has occurred but they can't remember how it happened (people in future generations). They simply accept the new view as their own. The term 'gradual commitment' might be used to explain how people slowly drift into a new kind of behaviour. Eg. forgetting how or when the change occurred.
107
the role of conformity in social change
Normative - people want to be liked/fit in so may change their behaviour to fit into the group norm, especially if the change is already clear throughout society.
Informational - sometimes there may be evidence to inform us about an issue.
108
the role of obedience in social change
People may be further swayed by an issue if the social change had led to a change in laws or rules eg. social change in smoking due to law changes.
109
evaluation of social change
+ can use real-world evidence for social change eg. Ghandi or Rosa Parks
+ Nolan (2008) - conformity is an important process in social change
- there may be barriers to social change which are not accounted for in the theory eg. Bashir (2013) > minorities need to be careful about the perception they give other people
- Nemeth (1986) argues that the effects of minority influence are likely to be mostly indirect and delayed - not as powerful as we think
- not all normative social influence led campaigns lead to social change eg. DeJong et al. (2009)
110
research support for social change
Nolan (2008) found that when people believe those around them are making changes, they are more likely to make similar change (conformity is an important process in social change)
111
research suggesting barriers to social change
Bashir (2013) investigated why people resist social change even when they agree that it is necessary, they found that people do not want to be associated with minority stereotypes
> minorities need to be careful about the perception they give other people
112
research against social change
DeJong et al. (2009) found no difference in alcohol use amongst students despite receiving normative information (conflicting research)
