Social Influence Flashcards

Question

NSI and ISI Limitation

Answer 1

One limitation is that the findings of conformity studies could be due to NSI and/or ISI For example, in the Asch study, the findings could be explained by NSI, a unanimous group of strangers can certainly result in us attempting to gain social approval by agreeing with them But it is also true that a unanimous group conveys the impression that everyone is ‘in the know’ except for you, which conveys ISI This is a limitation because it shows that it is hard to separate NSI and ISI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations

Answer 2

A second limitation about NSI is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case - it lacks predictive validity For example, some people are more concerned with being liked than others. These people are called nAffiliators - they have a a strong need for affiliation, which means they want to relate to other people. Research has shown that students who are nAffiliators are more likely to conform This is a limitation because it shows that there are individual differences in conformity as NSI is underlying conformity for some people more than it does for others - and therefore conformity cannot be fully explained by one general theory

Answer 3

In the 1970s, Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most infamous studies in psychology - the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)

Answer 4

In Milgram’s Study, he selected 40 American men, all ages 20-50, from a. Range of occupational and educational backgrounds, to take part in his study at Yale University He advertised this study in the New Haven Times newspaper and told them this was a study on learning and punishment ($4.50 to take part) His real aim was to prove his belief that everyone had the ability to do what the Germans had done in the Holocaust When they arrived, they were introduced to another participant called Mr Wallace (who was actually a confederate) and the experimenter (who wore a lab coat), and they drew lots to decide who would be the teacher and who the leaner - however, this was rigged so the naive participant was always the teacher When in the rooms, the teacher and leaner weren’t in the same room, but the teacher could still hear the learner The teacher had to give the learner a simple word pairs test, and every time the learner got an answer wrong, they would have to give then an electrical shock - these shocks would start at 15 volts and increase in 15 volt intervals, up to 450 volts - the teacher was told that these shocks would have no long term effects on the learner These shocks we’re obviously fake, and Mr Wallace was an actor who had pre recorded audios to play in response to being shocked - one of the things he said was “I have a heart condition” - these audio reactions stopped at 300 volts, suggesting he was not conscious anymore - the levers also had different words written on them, such as “danger” and “xxx shock” If the participant ever hesitated, asked if they could stop, asked if they could go and check on Mr Wallace, the experimenter would instruct them to continue

Answer 5

Every participant in the study delivered all of the shocks up to 300 volts At this point, 12.5% (5) of the participants stopped and refused to go any further 65% of participants continued all the way to the end and delivered all 450 volts It was stated that the participants showed signs of extreme tension such as sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning and digging their nails into their hands - 3 of them also have “full-blown uncontrollable seizures” (what we now know as panic attacks) They were all given a thorough debrief at the end of the study and given access to counselling if it was required

Answer 6

Milgram concluded that German people were no different to others The American participants in the study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person

Answer 7

Milgram was not breaking any official ethical guidance at the time because non existed However, he was still criticised for his unethical treatment of his participants, such as by Diana Baumrind (1974) There are several ethical criticisms that could be made about his research: - deception - the participants were led to believe that the shocks were real, the advert was misleading about the aim and confederates were used in the experiment - this means that there was no full informed consent for this research - however, this deception was necessary due to the nature of the study - risk of psychological harm - during the short-term, the participants felt very stressed, panicky, and 3 even had panic attacks - in the long-term, they may feel guilt for their actions (the the extent of their knowledge at the time, their actions could have been fatal) - Milgram did a thorough debrief after the study was over, they immediately saw Mr Wallace when they left the room and they were assured that their actions were normal - they even had follow ups with the participants and they had counselling offered to them However, despite all of this, 84% of Milgram’s participants said that they were “glad” that they took part - given this, and out increase in knowledge from the study, we need to analyse the cost-benefit from this study - these findings could potentially prevent a repeat of the Holocaust

Answer 8

Milgram’s research has been criticised for lacking population validity For example, in his research he only used a male sample, which is showing gender bias (beta bias) and it is assuming that there is no difference between obedience in males and females They were also all American, which is showing a culture bias and assuming that obedience will be the same in all cultures - further research has shown that obedience is different among different countries, such asx its being low in Australia and high in Germany This is a limitation because it means it becomes a lot harder to generalise the findings of the study to different groups

Answer 9

Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity For example, the task the participants were asked to do was very artificial. You are highly unlikely to be asked to give someone electric shocks for answering a question wrong in day to day life, and therefore you may act very differently is a realistic task. This task was also very extreme, and therefore, again, won’t be seen in day to day life This is a limitation because it means these findings can’t be generalised to the real, every day world However, it could be argued that due to Milgram’s aim, the task wasn’t extreme. He wanted to prove that everyone would act how the German’s did during the Holocaust, and perform horrific tasks if someone, who appeared to be a professional and higher is the social hierarchy than them, told them too. The Holocaust was a very extreme event and doesn’t happen in every day to day life, and therefore the task is not very extreme, considering the aim

Answer 10

Milgram’s research has been criticised for lacking internal validity (it is not measuring what it is claiming to measure, and therefore not really measuring obedience) For example, Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they’ve found themselves in, and knew the learner wasn’t receiving electric shocks. If this is the case, then the study does lack internal validity as the participants needed to believe this set up in order for the study to be measuring obedience They may not have believed the set up for reasons such as: - they couldn’t actually see Mr Wallace - the reactions to being shocked were taped recordings and therefore might not have seemed authentic - if the participants had any knowledge on fatal voltages, they would have likely expected him to be dead way before 300 volts (the point at which he stopped making noise) - the experimenters response was to continue even when he was screaming and then when he stopped saying anything and also refused to check on him, which must have seemed suspicious This is also backed up by Perry (2013) who’s listened to the tapes of the interviews of participants - Perry observed that “it’s more truthful to say that only half of the people who undertook the study fully believed it was real” - (however, participants seemed very distressed during study and they may have been lying about not believed it due to social desirability bias) This is a limitation because if the research lacks internal validity, then the results cannot be seen as accurate and therefore can’t be used to draw any conclusions about obedience

Answer 11

After the claims about a lack of internal validity in Milgram’s Research, Charles Sheridan and Richard King therefore decided to repeat Milgram’s research, but instead of using an actor, they decided to use an actual victim. They used a puppy to be shocked, and if people did shock the puppy, it would support Milgram’s research Like Milgram, Sheridan and King lied about the nature of the study, telling the volunteers that the puppy was being trained to distinguish between flickering and steady light. And, like the Milgram study, the participants were told the shock the puppy if it failed. However, unliked the Milgram study, the puppy was actually being shocked As the study progressed, the voltage intensity increased, causing the puppy to be visibly distressed. It barked, jumped around frantically and howled with pain. These were met with similar reactions from the the volunteers, who hyperventilated, cried and tried to gesture to the puppy in an attempt to prevent its failure Despite all of this, 20 of the 26 volunteers (all 13 females and 7 of the 13 males) pushed the shock button right up to the maximum intensity, suggesting that: - the volunteers of Milgram’s experiment were not aware of any acting on the learner’s part - it really is human nature to comply with authority to then point of causing extreme harm to another being, whether it is human or animal This is a strength because it supports the validity of Milgram’s study

Answer 12

In the context of Milgram’s situational variables, proximity refers to both: - the physical closeness of an authority figure (the experimenter) to the person they are giving the order to (the teacher) - the physical closeness of the teacher to the learner In the original Milgram study the physical closeness to the: - authority figure (the experimenter) to the person they are giving orders to (the teacher) was high - teacher to the leaner was low Note that the baseline obedience rate was 65%

Answer 13

The teacher and learner were in the same room (Mr Wallace had to physically act shocked): - the proximity was increased - obedience dropped to 40% The teacher had to force the leaner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he refused to answer/gave the wrong answer: - even higher proximity - touch proximity variation - obedience dropped to 30% The experimenter left the room and the teacher was in and gave instructions to the teacher via telephones - lower proximity - remote instruction variation - obedience drops to 20.5% and the teacher would lie about shocking Mr Wallace

Answer 14

Increased Proximity to Leaner: - decrease in obedience - the teacher is forced to see the consequences of their actions (hurt caused - can’t displace it) - the buffer/wall is removed, so they aren’t able to physically or psychologically distance themselves Decreased Proximity to Experimenter: - results in decrease in obedience - the pressure felt by the command of the authority figure is reduced with distance - makes it easier to refuse

Answer 15

When the study was carried out at Yale University, the obedience rate was 65% When the study was moved to a rung down office building in downtown Bridgeport, the obedience rate dropped to 48.5%

Answer 16

Yale has the prestige that comes from being a top university in the country, and it gives the study importance and legitimacy - this is lost in the office building However, a 48.5% obedience rate is still surprisingly high for a run down office building - this might be because the participants in the study were told it was being carried out by the Research Association of Bridgeport which does still give it legitimacy

Answer 17

In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made the mistake The % of participants who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniforms

Answer 18

Uniforms are recognised symbols of authority This is going to encourage obedience, so without them, obedience will be reduced

Answer 19

One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience For example, Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used 3 males actors: - one dressed as a milkman - one dressed as a security guard - one dressed in ordinary clothes The actors asked members of the public to follow one of 3 instructions: - pick up a bag - give someone money for a parking metre - stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’ On average, the guard was obey 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30% These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power This is a strength because it supports the findings that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect in obedience

Answer 20

Another strength of Milgram’s research is hat his findings have been replicated in other cultures For example, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. These statements were insults, there were 15 of which were more insulting than the previous one. 90% of the participants obeyed. In addition, the researchers found that when the person giving the order to say something more stressful was not physically present, the rate of obedience dropped dramatically This is a strength because it suggests we can conclude that Milgram’s findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to males and fr males in all or most cultures

Answer 21

Milgram concluded that situational factors determine obedience - people obeys because of pressure in the situation that they bare powerless to resist - for example, if an authority figure is earning an uniform, people are more likely to obey even if the orders are destructive However,Mandel (1998) argues that this perspective provides and excuse (or ‘alibi’) for destructive obedience (e.g. ‘I was just following orders’). People can excuse their antisocial behaviour because it isn’t their fault - in his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders, implying that the Nazis were victim of situational factors beyond their control Furthermore, Milgram’s perspective overlooks the role of dispositional factors (e.g. your personality characteristics) - some people may be more obedient, either as a consequence of genetics or because of their upbringing - this may be just as important in determining whether people obey authority This suggests that Milgram’s explanation based solely on situational factors is likely to oversimplify (reductionist) the causes of obedience - Mandel is right to argue that attributing the Holocaust to situational pressures while ignoring the role of disposition is offensive of survivors

Answer 22

Milgram suggested that we are most likely to obey a person who had a higher position or higher status in a social hierarchy, as we are taught to accept their authority and obey them from an early age - these higher positions can change given what situation we are in - e.g. a doctor will have a high place in the social hierarchy when in a hospital, but lower down when out in a street These individuals often have visible symbols of authority, such as uniforms - these give the authority figure legitimacy This is necessary for a well-functioning society and we are willing to give up sone independence and control people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately Problems can arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive

Answer 23

Massacre at My Lai, where over 500 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers in 1968 during the Vietnam War It has been argued that this atrocity can be understood in terms of the power structure of the US Army, with commanding officers (higher status and the uniform as the symbol of that higher status) giving orders that soldiers followed - as the command officers have a legitimate authority in the power of hierarchy of the US Army This adds validity to the explanation

Answer 24

One strength of the LOA is that there are supporting research studies For example, when Milgram removed the uniform (lab coat) in his study, obedience dropped from 65% to 20%, or when Milgram removed the legitimacy of Yale, obedience dropped to 48.5%. Also, in the Bickman study, 75% of people obeyed the security guard vs only 30% of people obeying the man in normal street clothes This is a strength because it is adding validity to the study

Answer 25

Rank & Jacobson (1977) found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor (an obvious authority and a higher status in the hospital hierarchy) to administer an excessive drug des to a patient (astroten max does of 5mg - stated on the bottle) - this shows that legitimacy of authority is not a complete explanation for obedience However, Hofling et al (1966) found that 21/22 nurses would administer a ‘drug’ to a patient when ordered by an unknown doctor over the phone (which is breaking hospital rules)

Answer 26

Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority For example, Kilham and Mann (19740 found that only 16% of female Australian participants went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study However, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants at 85% This could be explained by the legitimacy of authority because some cultures (e.g. Germany) place more emphasis on teaching children to obey authority figures

Answer 27

Milgram argued that people operate in 1 of 2 ways when faced with social situations - this builds upon the legitimate authority explanation but is still separate from it Individuals can act autonomously (free will) and choose their behaviour, or they can enter and agentic state, where they carry out orders of an authority figure (they become an ‘agent’ of that authority figure) When a person changes from an autonomous state to an agentic state, they undergo an agentic shift While in the agentic state, an individual does not feel responses for the consequences of their actions, they still experience ‘moral strain’ and high anxiety if they are causing harm to others as a result of their obedience This is reduced by using strategies such as shifting the responsibility to the victim (“if only they had done what they needed to do”) or denying the damage they are doing These are binding factors - they help us ignore or minimise the damaging effects of our obedience

Answer 28

In 1977, the worst aeroplane disaster happened in Tenerife, where 2 huge passenger planed collided on the runway and 583 people died The blame was places on a KLM plane, which taxied down the runway before being given clearance and hit a Pan-Am plane The KLM captain was a senior figure at KLM (higher status/authority figure - was sat in the cockpit and in a captain uniform) and head of pilot training Other members of the KLM flight crew had questioned the captain’s take-off decision (autonomous state) but rather than insisting he stop or abort take-off, they continued to follow the captain’s take-off commands - this is an example of the agentic state All of the KLM passengers and crew died, and only a few people from the Pan-Am survived This can be explained by the agentic state because in the crew’s mind, if they got in trouble for this, they could have blamed the captain

Answer 29

One strength of the agentic state is that it has research supporting it For example, in Milgram’s original study, 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in the agentic state. When participants asked “who is responsible for the harm to Mr Wallace?”, the experimenter would reply “I am” and participants than continued, showing that once they perceived that they were nil longer responsible, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent In another variation of Milgram’s study, an additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher. In this variation, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92,5%. This variation highlights the power of shifting responsibility, as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they felt less responsible. Therefore, the ability to enter an agentic state increasing the level of obedience, as the level of personal responsibility decrease This is a strength because the findings from these studies support the theory, and therefore adds validity and accuracy to the theory

Answer 30

One limitation of the agentic state is that there is, however, contradictory research to the agentic state For example, in the Milgram study, a third of participants did remain autonomous. The agentic state can’t be used to explain their reaction, as not everyone does enter the agentic state. On top of this, Rank and Jacobson (19770 found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor and remained autonomous when asked to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient This is a limitation because it shows that the agentic state is not a complete explanation of obedience

Answer 31

The authoritarian personality helps us understand individual differences in levels of obedience and why not everyone will behave the same in situations, and may not obey The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et al. (1950) and referees to a person who has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power of them Adorno et al. (1950) conducted a study using over 2000 middle-class, Caucasian Americans using a number of questionnaires, including one called the F-scale, which measures fascist tendencies, which is thought to be at the core of the authoritarian personality Adorno found that individuals who scored highly on the F-scale identified with ‘strong’ people and showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’ Also, those high on the F-scale were status-conscious, showing excessive respect to those i9n high power Adorno concluded that individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures and showed extreme submissiveness and respect They are also uncomfortable with uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong with ‘no grey area’ in-between, demonstrating an inflexible attitude - they, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to enforce rigid, traditional values

Answer 32

Adorno believed that the foundations for an authoritarian personality were laid in early childhood as a result of harsh and strict parenting, which made the child feel that the love of their parents was conditional and dependent upon how they behaved He argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child, especially towards their mother But the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear punishment, especially from their father So their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, in a process known as scapegoating - due to this, as adults they don’t have that hate and fear towards their parents and actually have huge respect for them, especially their dad This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior pro who belong to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority This is an example of a psychodynamic explanation (second year approach)

Answer 33

(Uses the Likert scale - Strongly agree (SA), agree (A), Disagree (D), strongly disagree (SD) Insults to our honour are not always important enough to bother about (SD) Sex crimes such as a rape and attacks on children are signs of mental illness; such people should be in hospitals rather than in prisons (SD) Most honest people admit to themselves that have have sometimes hated their parents (SD) Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas but as they grow up, they ought to get5 over them and settle down (SA) Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn (SA) What the young need the most is a strict discipline, rugged determination and the will to work and fight for family and country (SA) There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents (SA)

Answer 34

One strength of the authoritarian personality is that there is research based evidence to support it For ample, Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted post-experimental interviews with participants whom were fully obedient in Milgram’s original study, to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality. It was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale in comparison to disobedient participants This is a strength because it supports the idea proposed by the authoritarian personality, as those who scored high on the F-scale were more likely to have that personality types, and there more likely to fully obey the experimenter, which they did However, on closer examination, these obedient participants has a number of characteristics that were unusual for people with authoritarian personalities For example, they generally did not glorify their father, did not believe in unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers So, the results above may not be as strong as why first appear

Answer 35

One limitation of the authoritarian personality is that other variables may play a role For example, there may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality. Research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less-educated people are more likely than well-educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. If these claims are correct, then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience, but also levels of education This is a limitation because these findings undermine the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience as other factors also play an important role

Answer 36

One limitation of the authoritarian personality is that it’s commentary point. It has a political bias For example, the F-scale only measures tendencies towards extreme right-wing ideologies. But extreme left-wing ideologies (e.g Russian, Bolshevism) has a lot in common with extreme right-wing ideology. For example, they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority, such as a dictator This is a limitation because the F-scale misses out an entire section of people that could be considered to have an authoritarian personality, and it should be developed further to take far left views into account

Answer 37

Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority

Answer 38

Having social support - the presence of other people who resist pressures to conform or obey - can help other people to do the same - they act as models (SLT) to show others that resistance to social influence is possible Asch study when social support was introduced: - one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer (agree with the naive participant) which gave social support to the participant - conformity dropped from 37% to 5.5% Milgram study when social support was introduced: - 2 more ‘teachers’ were added into the study - however these were confederates, whose role it was to obey - obedience dropped from 65% to 10%

Answer 39

One strength is that there is real-world research support for social support helping people resist conformity For example, Albrecht et al, (2006) looked at an 8 week programme designed to help pregnant 14-19 year olds resist peers pressure to smoke. Some young people were provided with a social support in the form of a slightly older ‘buddy’ (help say ‘no’ to smoking). After the 8 weeks, those who had been allocated a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke compared to a control group when had not been allocated a buddy This is a strength because it shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as a part of an intervention in the real world. It also adds validity to social support as an explanation for resisting conformity

Answer 40

One strength is that there is further research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience For example, Ganson carried out research to support this. He advertised for people to take part in a “focus group”, for a 2 hour discussion, and were offered $10 to take part.they attended in groups of 9 (male and female), and there were 33 groups in total (at different time slots). They were asked to discuss moral standards, and they were given what they believed was a hypothetical situation ‘A manager had been sacked for having a relationship with a younger colleague (it was not an affair and it was not illegal)” Their discussion of about what they think was videoed. They said it was wrong that they were sacked. The videoing then stopped and the researchers said they were lawyers from the firm and the manager is suing the firm for unfair dismissal. They said that they were brought here because the lawyers wanted the people to say that the manager should have been sacked, so it could be seen in court. This is the unfair order. The video then started again. All groups refused the order and 29 of them almost physically threatened the ‘lawyers’ They were then fully debriefed and interviewed and asked why they said no and they said “we were in a group - we could stick together” Some admitted that if they hadn’t been in a group then they would have likely done what the ‘lawyer’ had asked of them

Answer 41

(Dispositional explanation) Locus of control (LOC) refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lived People with an external locus of control feel that their lives are largely down to fate or karma, whereas people with an internal locus of take responsibility for their own actions and feel that they are in charge of what happens in their life Internal Summary: - an individual who believes their life is determined by their own decisions and efforts - mainly in charge of their life - responsible for your own life External Summary: - an individual who believes their life is determined by fate, luck and external factors - limited control over your life - “out of my control” The fact that LOC exists gives a limitation to social support, as it means that it cannot be a full explanation

Answer 42

People with an internal locus of control is more likely to find it easier to resist society influence - i.e. easier to not conform and obey 1) internal LOC individuals take responsibility for their actions - they would feel accountable for negative outcomes from blindly conforming/obeying, this would reduce the chanced of the agentic shift 2) often, internal LOC individuals are more self-confident, you find it easier to say no and less affected by normative social influence

Answer 43

One strength is that there is research supporting showing a link between LOC and resisting obedience For example, Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and also measured whether people had an internal or external LOC. He found that 37% of people with an internal LOC showed some resistance (by not continuing to 450 volts), whereas only 23% of people with an external LOC showed some resistance (Sig dif as internal LOC people resisted approx half as much) This is a strength because it shows that resistance to obedience is at least partly related to locus of control, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of resisting obedience

Answer 44

One limitation is that there is other research which challenges the link between LOC and resisting obedience For example, Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over a 40 year period (1960-2001). The data showed that people became both more external but also more resistant to obedience This is a weakness because the findings are contradictory. We would expect that if resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, then people over time should become more internal, not more external. This suggests that LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence

Answer 45

A from of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours Minority influence is a from of internalisation - you really come to believe the minority view point (they are persuasive) Examples of minority influence are: - civil rights movement - suffragettes - LGTBTQ+ rights - climate change - abortion movement - round world theory

Answer 46

Moscovici’s et al. (1969) demonstrated minority influence in a study where a group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and state whether the slides were blue or green In each group there 2 confederates who consistently said the slides were green. The true participants gave the same wrong answer (green) on 8.42% of the trials - i.e. agreed with the confederates A second group of participants was exposed to an inconsistent minority (the confederates said ‘green’ 24 times and ‘blue’ 12 times) In this case, agreement with the answer ‘green’ fell to 1.25% For a third control group, there were no confederates and all participants had to do was identify the colour of each slide They got this wrong just on 0.25% of the trials

Answer 47

Moscovici’s research suggests that minority influence is most effective if the minority are consistent in their view Consistency can take the form of agreement between people in the minority group, which is known as synchronic consistency - all of the people in the minority group are saying the same thing It can also refer to people in the minority group being consistent over time, which is known as diachronic consistency - all of the people in the minority group have been saying the same thing for some time Consistency is an important process in minority and might start to make the majority re-examine their own views because it shows us that the minority believe their position This might make us start to think about their point of view and why they believe it

Answer 48

Having said that about consistency, Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence Relentless consistency can be counter-productive because it can be seen as the majority as unbending and unreasonable and therefore consistency on its own is unlikely to gain many coverts to the minority influence Instead, members of the minority needed to be prepared to compromise and adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments - they need to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility

Answer 49

The minority music demonstrate commitment to their cause or views If a minority demonstrates dedication to their position, especially if this involves making some kind of personal sacrifice, this will increase the influence of the minority because it shows that they are not acting out of self-interest and it reinforces, or augments, their message - this is therefore also known as the augmentation principle This then causes the majority to pay more attention to the minority - “wow, they must really believe in what they are saying, I think I will listen more closely to this person/group” An example of commitment within a minority influence is the suffragettes due to them going on hunger strikes, force-feeding, ridicule, arrest and even death

Answer 50

One strength is that further research demonstrates the impact of minority influence For example, an adaption of Moscovici’s research was completed where participants were exposed to minority influence but were able to give answers privately. The researchers found even higher levels of agreement with the minority than in the original research This is a strength because the research demonstrates that minority can be a powerful influence on the attitudes and behaviours of others, but more specifically that consistency is key to successful minority influence

Answer 51

One strength is that there is further research evidence supporting the processes involved in minority influence For example, Nemeth (1986) investigated the idea of flexibility in which participants, in groups of 4, had to agree on the amount on compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident. One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were 2 conditions: 1) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change his position (inflexible) 2) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible) Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or not effect on the majority, however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their views This is a strength because it does demonstrate the importance of flexibility in minority influence

Answer 52

One limitation is that most of the research is based on lab experiments conducted in laboratories. This raises the question of ecological validity - it is impossible to generalise the findings of lab based findings to other settings For example, Edward Sampson (1991) is particularly critical of laboratory research on minority influence. He makes the following points: 1) the participants in lab experiments are rarely ‘real groups’ - most often than not, they are a collection of students who do not know each other again and will probably never meet again 2) they are also involved in an artificial task - as such they are very different from minority groups in wider society who seek to change majority opinion This is a limitation because it means that lab based research into minority influence my not tell us much about real world minority groups (such as gay rights organisations and pressure groups such as Green Peace) are able to have influence on the majority

Answer 53

One limitation is that Moscovici’s research can be criticised for having a limited sample and lacking population validity For example, Moscovici used a bias sample of 172 female participants from America, making it gynocentric This is a limitation because it means we are able to generalise the results to other populations, such as males as we now cannot assume that males would respond to minority influence it the same way. This is an issue because research often suggests that females are more likely to conform and therefore research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants

Answer 54

One limitation is that there are low numbers of people who are influenced by the minority in supporting research, such as Moscovici’s study, which suggests that current explanations of minority influence are too simplistic because they ignore factors that are involved in minority influence For example, Mackie (1987) offers an alternative theory. A group of heterosexual participants were asked to watch a debate on gay rights between a minority homosexual group (who were consistent, committed and flexible on the subject of gay rights) and a majority heterosexual group. The observers were more likely to be swayed by the majority heterosexual group than the minority. It was concluded that regardless of the majority or minority position, we are more likely to be swayed by people we see as “like ourselves” - our - “in group” This is a limitation because it does show that there are alternative explanations for minority influence

Answer 55

The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours It included conformity, obedience and minority influence

Answer 56

This occurs when who societies, rather than individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things

Answer 57

Drawing attention through proof - involves the minority bringing their thoughts about what needs to be changed to society Consistency - involves the minority staying on message - need to have synchronic and diachronic consistency Deeper processing - involves the majority questioning the status quo Augmentation process - involves the minority showing their commitment by potential risk or sacrifice Snowball effect - the majority starts to join the minority and the minority gets bigger and bigger and then eventually we have a new majority Social cryptomensia - change has happened, people know it has happened, but not how it happened

Answer 58

Drawing attention through proof - Stonewall riots in 1969 drew attention to inequalities that the LGBTQ+ population faced Consistency - Stonewall in 1969, Gay Liberation Front 1969, First London Gay Pride Ally 1972 (now annual) - these were all saying “gay rights” - clear to the majority Deeper processing - majority heterosexual population starting to think about why there are inequalities Augmentation principle - risking homophobia (verbal or physical) Snowball effect - 2004 Civil Partnership Act passed - the majority was on board Social cryptomensia - in 2023 - we accept equality, but maybe don’t “remember” the full history

Answer 59

Normative social influence can explain social change because we want to be liked and therefore change the way we act to the ways others act - this can be seen in the LGBTQ+ rights movement because there will have been times where an unsupportive persons was surrounded by supportive people, and therefore will also express support to be liked Dissenter breaks the power of the majority This helps promote change - for example, one straight ally will encourage more straight people to be allies Informational social influence is where you conform because you want to be right - for example, if you were unsure how to treat an LGBTQ+ person, you might look at how others treat them and see all of the allies

Answer 60

Legitimacy of authority - we obey those with status in the social hierarchy - the law has ultimate authority - it is illegal to not respect LGBTQ+ acts Gradual commitment - it is easier to get people to obey if we get them to obey to a small thing and build it up - we had small changes in the law with LGBTQ+ rights - when couples of 2 males became legal, the age of consent was 21 (this was in 1967) ~ it was lowered to 18 in 1994 ~ it was lowered again to 16 (the same as same sex couples) in 2001

Answer 61

(Conformity) One strength is that research has shown that social influence processes based on psychological research do work For example, Nolan et al. (2008) aimed to see if they could change people’s energy-use habits. The researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego in California, every week for one month, saying that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, other residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people’s behaviour. There were significant decreases in energy usage in the first group compared to the second group This is a strength because it does show that conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence (i.e. it is a valid explanation)

Answer 62

One limitation of social change is that some studies show that people’s behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms For example, Foxcroft et al (2005) reviewed 70 studies where this approach was used to try and reduce student alcohol use by printing messages on beer mats that young people did not actually drink as much as you think they do. This only led to a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect in drinking frequency This is a limitation because it seems that using normative influence does not always work

Answer 63

Another strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change Nemeth (2009) argues that social change is due to the types of thinking that minorities inspire. When people consider minority arguments, they engage in divergent thinking. This type of thinking is broad rather that narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options. Nemeth claims this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues This is a strength because not only does it shows why dissenting minorities are valuable, but also supports social change because we can explain the psychology behind it

Answer 64

One limitation of social change is that it may not be the case that people are converted because they think more deeply about the minorities view For example, Mackie (1987) argues that it is actually majority influence that creates deeper processing if you do not share their views. This is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think in the same way as us. When we find that a majority believes something different, we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning. This is a limitation because it means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change

Answer 65

Bashir et al (2013) point out that the fact that people still resist social change For example, they found that participants were less likely to behave in an environmentally-friendly way because they did not want to be associated with stereotypical and minority “environmentalists”, describing them in negative ways such as “hippy-tree huggers” This shows that there can be barriers to social change and it is not as easy as you might think to have a minority influence majority opinion and behaviour

Social Influence Flashcards

(94 cards)