Social influence

Question 1

Define social influence

Answer 1

The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours

Question 2

What is conformity?

Answer 2

When a person changes their behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from another person or group of people

Question 3

Describe the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion of Asch’s original (baseline) study

Answer 3

Aim: test of conformity

Procedure: 123 American males tested on what they are told is a visual perception task. They are sat in a room with between 6 and 8 confederates and are asked to say which of three comparison lines matches the length of the stimulus line. All of the confederates give the same wrong answer

Findings: they do this for 18 trials where on 12 of them the confederates give the same wrong answer. The participants tend to conform.

Conclusion: It’s thought this is because they wanted to avoid rejection from the group/gain their approval (called normative social influence).

Tests NSI and compliance

Question 4

Asch’s research took place during McCarthyism. Why is this a problem and what evidence do we have to support that it is a problem? What does this mean for his conclusion about conformity?

Answer 4

It is possible that Asch’s findings are unique because the research took place in a period of US history called McCarthyism where conformity was high. This was a strong anti-Communist period where people were scared to go against the majority and so more likely to conform. Supporting this, Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s study in the UK using science and engineering students. In their initial study, they found only one conforming response out of a total of 396 trials where a majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer. It may be that these students were more confident measuring lines than the original sample, but it’s more likely that society has changed since the 1950s and people are potentially less conformist today.

Research may lack external (temporal and population) validity as the results are not consistent across people or time. Therefore from the study, we cannot conclude that conformity is a universal feature of human behaviour.

Question 5

Asch’s study is said to lack mundane realism. How? Why is this a problem for his conclusion about conformity?

Answer 5

It would be unusual to be in a situation where you would disagree so much with others as to what was the ‘correct’ answer in a situation. The task was trivial and so there was no reason not to conform. The ‘group’ also didn’t resemble groups in everyday life as it was all strangers who the naive participants might have wanted to impress meaning that conformity was higher than usual. Additionally, the confederates weren’t trained actors so participants may have realised that their answers weren’t real. Participants may therefore have guessed the aims and changed their behaviour accordingly (demand characteristics).

This suggests that the findings may not be valid and so may tell us little about real-life conformity as the results may not generalise to everyday situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity are more important.

Question 6

Asch’s study involved participants answering out loud in a group of strangers. Why is this a problem? What does this tell us about his conclusion about conformity?

Ignore

Answer 6

The fact that participants had to answer out loud and were with a group of strangers who they wanted to impress might mean that conformity was higher than usual. However, research has found that conformity was actually higher when the majority of the group were friends rather than strangers. This suggests that conformity changes from situation to situation.

This suggests that the findings may lack external validity and so may not generalise to more everyday situations where conformity occurs.

Question 7

Asch only tested American males. Why is this a problem? What does this tell us about his conclusion about conformity?

Answer 7

Asch only tested males. Research has found that women may be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted than men are. The participants were also American (from an individualist culture) where people are more concerned about themselves rather than their social group. Similar studies conducted in collectivist cultures (e.g. China), where the social groups are more important than the individual, have found conformity rates are higher. This may be because such cultures are more oriented to group needs.

This suggests that conformity levels are sometimes even higher than Asch found. His findings may only therefore apply to US men as he didn’t take gender and cultural differences into account and so only gives us a limited view about the impact of conformity.

Question 8

Explain how Asch’s study involved:
a. Deception
b. Lacking protection from harm

Answer 8

Asch’s study was unethical as it involved deceit about the aim of the study and the confederates. Participants were told that the study was about visual perception when it was really about conformity, and they were led to believe that the confederates were other participants. It also involved psychological harm, with participants put under stress through disagreeing with others. This may have caused significant embarrassment.

However, it is worth considering that these ethical costs should be weighed against the benefits gained from the study. The relatively short-term costs to the participants could be argued to be outweighed by the importance of the results in terms of what we have learned about conformity.
Counterargument: however, given the issues with the validity of the conclusions regarding conformity, it could be argued that the benefits don’t outweigh these costs.

Question 9

Would a cost-benefit analysis suggest the study should have been conducted? Why?

Ignore

Answer 9

Yes because the harm to the participants was only short lived and the study told us useful info about conformity/ can also be argued the other way due to validity issues

Question 10

What do we mean by an ethical evaluation point?

Answer 10

Any evaluation point that is linked to ethical issues.

Question 11

What do we mean by a methodological evaluation point?

Answer 11

Any evaluation point that is not about ethical issues e.g. extraneous variables, validity etc.

Question 12

Describe the procedure and findings of Asch’s group size variation (include which type and explanation of conformity were on display)

Answer 12

Procedure and findings:
- 1 confederate - very little conformity
- 2 confederate - 13%
- 3 confederates - 31.8%
- Up to 15 confederates - didn’t increase from 31.8% substantially

Conclusion: A small majority is not sufficient for influence to be exerted, but that the size of the majority is only important up to a point. The more people present in the majority, the greater the potential for rejection so participants are more likely to conform to avoid this rejection.

Tests NSI and compliance

Question 13

Describe the procedure and findings of Asch’s unanimity variation (include which type and explanation of conformity were on display)

Answer 13

Procedure: He introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others – sometimes the new confederate gave the correct answer and sometimes he gave a different wrong one.

Findings and conclusion: Asch found that that the presence of the dissenting confederate giving the correct answer meant that conformity was reduced to 5%, and 9% when the dissenting confederate gave a different wrong answer. The dissenter enabled the participant to act more independently. This suggests that the influence of the majority depends to some extent on the group being unanimous.

Tests NSI and compliance

Question 14

Describe the procedure and findings of Asch’s difficulty of the task variation (include which type and explanation of conformity were on display)

Answer 14

Procedure: Asch made the difference between the line lengths much smaller so that the correct answer was less obvious and the task much more difficult.

Findings and conclusions: The level of conformity increased. This suggests that when the task gets harder, informational social influence plays a greater role. This is because the task is more ambiguous and so we are more likely to look to other people for guidance and to assume that they are right and we are wrong.

Tests ISI and internalisation

Question 15

For each of Asch’s variations, explain why the conformity rate changed using the explanations of conformity

Answer 15

Group size - NSI
Unanimity - NSI
Task difficulty - ISI

Question 16

Define compliance

Answer 16

Public but not private

The behaviour or opinion stops when they are not with the group

It is only a temporary change in views so weak

The reason for conformity is to gain approval/avoid rejection

Question 17

Define identification

Answer 17

Public and sometimes private

Views are maintained whilst a part of the group but not maintained when they leave the group

Permancent change whilst in the group but only whilst you’re in the group

Reason for conformity is becuase you want to be a part of the group

Question 18

Define internalisation

Answer 18

Public and private acceptance

The behaviour or opinions are maintained even when the group is not present

Permanent change in views so strong

Reason for conformity becuase they genuinely accept the group norms

Question 19

Define normative social influence

Answer 19

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority becuase we want to gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance

Question 20

Define informative social influence

Answer 20

An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority becuase we beleive it is correct. We accept it becuase we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.

Question 21

What are the types of conformity?

Answer 21

Compliance, identification, internalisation

Question 22

What are the explanations of conformity?

Answer 22

NSI and ISI

Question 23

Some psychologists have argued that conformity involves both NSI and ISI rather than one or the other. Give an example of how this could be the case. Why is this a problem for the explanations of conformity?

Ignore

Answer 23

Asch’s variation found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting confederate (someone who doesn’t conform). This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (because the dissenter provides social support) or they may reduce the power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information).

This suggests that it isn’t always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work, in lab studies and particularly in real-life conformity situations. This casts doubt over the view that NSI and ISI operate independently in conforming behaviour.

Question 24

Describe evidence to support NSI, including the procedure, results and how exactly it supports NSI

Asch interview and write down answers

Answer 24

Asch found that many of his participants went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. So he asked them why they did this. Some of the participants said that they felt self- conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When Asch repeated his study but asked participants to write down their answers instead of saying them aloud, conformity rates fell to 12.5%.

This suggests that people conform in situations with strangers because they fear rejection and want to avoid disapproval, as predicted by normative social influence. We look to other people and conform in order to be liked. When the fear of rejection is removed by writing answers down, conformity reduces, also as predicted by normative social influence.

Question 25

Maths

Describe evidence to support ISI, including the procedure, results and how exactly it supports ISI

Answer 25

Researchers (Lucas et al., 2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. They were given answers from three other students (that weren’t actually real). There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier ones. This was most true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor.

This suggests that people conform in situations where they feel that they don’t know the answer, as predicted by informational social influence. We look to other people and assume they know better than us and must be correct, so we conform.

Question 26

NSI and ISI don’t seem to affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. Give an example of this for each explanation of conformity and explain why this is a problem.

Students

Answer 26

ISI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. Asch found that students were less conformist than other participants. Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s study in the UK using science and engineering students. In their initial study, they found only one conforming response out of a total of 396 trials where a majority unanimously gave the same wrong answer.

This suggests that education affects conformity. Therefore, there are individual differences in the way people respond and so informational social influence doesn’t apply to all people equally. Consequently, it can’t be considered to be a completely valid explanation of conformity.

Question 27

Imagine you are asked to evaluate the types of conformity? Based on your answers above, what evidence have you got to support the types of conformity?

Answer 27

Lucas et al. - supporting for internalisation

Asch’s repeated study where participants wrote down their answers - supporting for compliance

Asch’s task difficulty variation - supporting for internalisation

Question 28

What is a social role?

Answer 28

Social roles are the ‘parts’ that people play as members of different social groups. These give us expectations of how we and others should behave in a given role.

Question 29

What is conformity to social roles?

Answer 29

Conformity to social roles involves identification, involving public and private acceptance of the behaviour and attitudes exhibited but only whilst in those particular situations.

Question 30

What were the social roles in Zimbardo’s study and how were they created?

Answer 30

Prison guard and prisoner, by wearing uniforms

Question 31

Describe the aim, procedure, results and conclusion of Zimbardo’s study of conformity to social roles.

Answer 31

Aim: Zimbardo wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally - is it their personality or their social role?

Procedure: 21 male uni students chosen by volunteer sampling who tested ‘emotionally stable.’ Randomly assigned to a role and had to wear different uniforms. Prisoners given a loose smock and cap to wer and were identified by a number. Guards had a wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades. Prisoners were encouraged to identify with their roll, e.g. Applying for parole. Guards encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they have complete power over the prisoners.

Results: Guards took up their roles with enthusiasm, treating prisoners harshly. Within 2 days prioners rebelled. Once it was put down by ‘divide and rule’ tactics, the prioners became depressed and anxious (one was released as he showed signs of psychological disturbance). Two more relased on the 4th day. One went on hunger strike - guards tried to force feed him and then punished him by putting in the hole , a tiny dark closet. Guards identified more and more with their roles. Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days.

Conclusion: Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour. The guards became brutal and the prisoners became submissive. Such roles were very easily taken on by all participants. Even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (such as the ‘prison chaplain’) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychology study.

Question 32

What real-world application does Zimbardo’s study have. What does this tell us about conformity to social roles?

Answer 32

Zimbardo argues that the same conformity to social role effect from the SPE was also present in Abu Ghraib, a military prison in Iraq notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003-4. Zimbardo believed that the guards who committed the abuse were the victims of situational factors that made abuse more likely e.g. lack of training, unrelenting boredom and no accountability to a higher authority, which were present in both situations. These combined with an opportunity to misuse the power associated with the assigned role of ‘guard’ led to the prisoner abuse in both situations.

This suggests that the findings of Zimbardo’s study on conformity to social roles have powerful external validity, and could be used to ensure that such abuses don’t happen again.

Question 33

It is argued that the results were due to demand characteristics. What evidence have we got to support this? What does this tell us about Zimbardo’s conclusion about conformity to social roles?

Answer 33

Researchers have argued that the behaviour of the participants was due to demand characteristics rather than the compelling prison environment. In one study, a large sample of participants who had never heard of the study were presented with some of the details of the SPE procedure. The vast majority of these students guessed the purpose of the experiment (to show that ordinary people assigned a role would act like real prisoners and guards) and they predicted that the guards would act in a hostile, domineering way and the prisoners would react in a passive way.

This suggests that the findings lack internal validity (we cannot see cause and effect between the roles assigned and conformity to those roles) and therefore suggests that people may not readily conform to social roles.

Question 34

How would Zimbardo argue that the results of his study were not due to demand characterisitics? What does this tell us about Zimbardo’s conclusion about conformity to social roles?

Answer 34

Zimbardo presented quantitative data that suggested that the situation was real to the participants. For instance, 90% of the conversations in the study were about prison life. Prisoner 416 expressed that the prison was real but run by psychologists rather than the state.

This suggests that the results are valid and so people do seem to conform to social roles.

Question 35

Zimbardo had good control over variables. Give examples of this and explain what this tells us about Zimbardo’s conclusion about conformity to social roles

Ignore

Answer 35

There was good control over variables e.g. the selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was a way to try to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved differently, but their roles were assigned by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the pressures of the situation.

This increases the internal validity of the study and so we can be more confident in drawing conclusions about conformity to social roles from Zimbardo’s study.

Question 36

Zimbardo has been accused of exaggerating the power of the situation. How? What does this tell us about Zimbardo’s conclusion about conformity to social roles?

Ignore

Answer 36

Only a minority of the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Another third were keen to apply the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.

This suggests that the conclusion that participants conformed to social roles may be overstated. The differences found indicate that people have the ability to make right/wrong choices despite pressures to conform to a social role and so people do not automatically conform to social roles.

Question 37

How does the BBC study by Haslam and Reicher (2006) undermine Zimbardo’s conclusion about conformity to social roles?

Ignore

Answer 37

The BBC Prison Study by Richer and Haslam (2006) found that the prisoners eventually took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience. They explained this using social identity theory – they argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did. They actively identified themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned roles as prisoners.

This undermines Zimbardo’s conclusion that the guards and prisoners were conforming to their social roles and implies that his conclusion may not be valid.

Question 38

Explain 3 ways in which Zimbardo’s study was unethical.

Answer 38

Ethical issues:
Zimbardo’s dual role as both the prison superintendent and the lead researcher meant that when one participant asked to leave, he treated them as a ‘prisoner’ rather than a ‘participant’ and so offered them the chance to ‘snitch’ rather than release them from the study. This compromised the participants’ right to withdraw. Participants had to therefore ask multiple times to leave, and one participant even claimed to fake psychological issues in order to be released.

Protection of participants – participants suffered great psychological distress/harm during the course of the study. For example, prisoners were repeatedly woken in the middle of the night, had to do demeaning tasks such as cleaning toilets with a toothbrush, were locked in the ‘hole’ for misdemeanours, and one even went on a hunger strike (which could cause physical harm too). Guards suffered distress knowing that they had acted aggressively.

Informed consent – whilst participants were aware that they were taking part in a study and would take on the role of prisoner or guard, they did not know that they would be arrested in their homes or stripped and ‘deloused’ etc.

It could be argued that these costs are outweighed by the benefits of what was learned about conformity to social roles. Whilst this doesn’t compromise the validity of the conclusion, it does suggest that such a study would not be allowed to be conducted again.

Counterargument: Zimbardo did debrief participants and conduct a follow-up to check for long-term psychological harm and found that there was none.

Question 39

Define obedience

Answer 39

Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person giving the order is usually an authority figure, who has the power to punish when people do not obey (they are above us in the social hierarchy).

Question 40

Explain at least two differences between conformity and obedience

Answer 40

Obedience occurs within a social hierarchy whereas conformity occurs between people of equal status.

Obedience occurs in response to an explicit order, whereas conformity occurs in response to implicit pressure.

Question 41

Describe the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion of Milgram’s original (baseline) study of obedience

Answer 41

Aim: to assess obedience in a situation where an authroity figure (experimenter) ordered the participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock to a learner located in a different room.

Procedure - 40 American men volunteered (paid $4.50) to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. When each volunteer arrived at Milgram’s lab he was introduced to another participant (a confederate of Milgram’s). They drew lots to see who would be the ‘Teacher’ (T) and who would be the ‘Learner’ (L). The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the Teacher. An ‘Experimenter’ (E) was also involved (also a confederate, dressed in a grey lab coat).

The learner was strapped into a chair and wired up with electrodes. The teacher (real participant) was given a small shock to experience for themselves. This was the only genuine shock in the procedure. The learner had to remember pairs of words. Each time he made an error, the teacher delivered a stronger (fake) ‘electric shock.’ When the teacher got to 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. At 315 volts he again pounded on the wall but was then silent for the rest of the procedure. Experimenter used prods, ‘Please contiune’ or ‘Please go on,’ ‘You have no other choice, you must go on.’

Findings : Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts. 12.5% (5 particpants) stopped at 300 volts (‘intense shock’) and 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts, i.e. They were fully obedient.

Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as: the participants showed signs of extreme tension; many of them were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands’; three even had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizure.’

Conclusion: The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person.

Question 42

Explain three ways in which Milgram’s study was unethical.

Answer 42

Deception - they were led to believe that the allocation of roles was random when it was fixed. They were also deceived into believing the electric shocks were real.

Protection from harm - psychologically harm as participants were distressed by giving what they thought were real electric shocks to another person. Some even had seizures.

Right to withdraw - prods made it hard (you have no choice)

Question 43

Milgram’s results may be due to demand characteristics. How? What does this tell us about his conclusion about obedience?

Answer 43

It has been argued that participants acted as they did because they didn’t believe that the shocks were real (demand characteristics). Subsequent researchers have listened to the recordings of the study and confirmed that a number of participants had doubts about the reality of the shocks.

This suggests that the study may have lacked internal validity and so from the study we cannot strongly support the internal validity of Milgram’s conclusion about obedience to authority (that people will obey orders even when they might harm another person) as people may have instead guessed that the shocks weren’t real and they were supposed to just keep pushing the button.

Question 44

What evidence do we have to say
Milgram’s results were not due to demand characteristics?

Puppies

Answer 44

However, a similar study was conducted in which real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. The results from the study on puppies implies that Milgram’s original results may have been internally valid and that therefore we can trust the conclusion about obedience to authority.

Question 45

How was Milgram’s study ecologically valid despite taking place in a lab? What does this tell us about his conclusion about obedience?

Answer 45

The study may appear to lack external validity as it was conducted in a lab, but the central feature of the study was the relationship between the authority figure and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.

Supported by Hofling et al. found that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands by doctors on a hospital ward (to give double the recommended dosage of a drug to a patient by a ‘doctor’ who called them and told them to do so).

This suggests that Milgram’s findings have external validity and therefore that they tell us something valuable about obedience in real life.

Question 46

Explain Milgram’s location variation (including why obedience dropped)

Answer 46

He conducted the study in a run-down building rather than the prestigious Yale university. Obedience fell to 47.5% (original 65%)

This is because the prestigious location conveys that the experimenter is a legitimate authority figure (i.e. someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation). People obey them because they are fulfilling their duty to the social hierarchy by doing so. In a less prestigious setting, this perception of the experimenter being a legitimate authority disappears and so obedience rates drop.

Question 47

Explain Milgram’s proximity variation (including why obedience dropped)

Answer 47

He made that the leaner and the teacher were in the same room, Obedience then dropped from 65% to 40%.

In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock’ plate when he refused to answer a question. Obedience in this condition dropped to 30%.

This is because the teacher can directly see the consequences of following the orders. They are aware that it is their actions causing the learner pain, and so they remain in the autonomous state (a state of being where you see yourself as having control and responsibility for your own behaviour) and so obedience rates drop.

Question 48

Explain Milgram’s uniform variation (including why obedience dropped)

Answer 48

The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (really a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience rates dropped to 20%

This is because the uniform conveys that the experimenter is a legitimate authority figure (i.e. someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation). People obey them because they are fulfilling their duty to the social hierarchy by doing so. Without the uniform, this perception of the experimenter being a legitimate authority disappears and so obedience rates drop.

Question 49

What evidence do we have to support the uniform variation? Describe what was done and found and how this supports the variation.

Answer 49

Bickman conducted a field experiment in NYC. Three confederates dressed in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform conveys authority (and so people obey to fulfil their duty to the social hierarchy) and is therefore a valid situational factor likely to produce obedience.

Why is it particularly good that this study supports Milgram’s conclusion? Because it is a field experiment suggesting that Milgram’s results are externally valid to situations beyond the laboratory.

Question 50

Explain one strength and one weakness of Milgram’s variations using research methods ideas.

Answer 50

Strength - Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time (e.g. proximity) to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience. All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with over 1000 participants in total. This means that we can see cause and effect i.e. that the situational variables of uniform, proximity and location cause obedience, supporting the internal validity of the situational explanation of obedience.

Weakness - Milgram’s findings support a situational explanation of obedience. However, this has been criticised by researchers who argue that it offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour. In some psychologists’ views, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. The situational explanation of obedience therefore ignores the idea that people have personal responsibility for their actions and therefore may cause psychological harm to victims.

Question 51

The results of the variations have been replicated in other cultures. What was found and why is this a strength?

Answer 51

The findings of cross-cultural research have generally been supportive of Milgram. One study found an obedience rate of over 90% in Spanish participants. This suggests that the findings have external validity and so the situational explanations of obedience apply across cultures and to women. However, most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies (e.g. Spain and Australia) and so the results may not be entirely valid.

Question 52

What do we mean by a social-psychological explanation of obedience?

Answer 52

These explanations focus on how the dynamics of the social hierarchies that we find ourselves in, influence obedience

Question 53

One social-psychological explanation of obedience is legitimacy of authority. What is a legitimate authority figure?

Answer 53

A legitimate authority figure is someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation. This is on the basis of factors such as uniform, location and proximity. They have the power to punish if we don’t obey.

Question 54

What three factors make some a legitimate authority figure?

Answer 54

Location - symbolises that they have more social control in the situation
Proximity - have power to punish
Uniform - same as location

Question 55

Why do we obey legitimate authority figures?

Answer 55

People obey them because they are fulfilling their duty to the social hierarchy by doing so.

Question 56

When the commands are harmful or destructive, what extra factor needs to be present for the authority figure to be perceived as legitimate?

Answer 56

They must occur within some sort of institutional structure (e.g. university, the military). This does not have to be a particularly reputable or distinguished institution.

Question 57

Another social-psychological explanation of obedience is agentic state theory. According to this theory, most of the time we are in an autonomous state. What is an autonomous state?

Answer 57

When an individual has control and acts according to their own wishes and thus see themselves as personally responsible for their actions.

Question 58

What triggers us to move to an agentic state and what is this movement called?

Answer 58

Agentic shift - when you perceive a legitimate authroity figure (inclduing location, proximity and uniform)

Question 59

What is an agentic state?

Answer 59

Where they see themselves as an agent of the authority figure giving the order. It is therefore the authority figure who is seen as responsible for the consequences of the individual’s actions rather than the individual themselves, and so increases the likelihood of obedience. Give up some of their free will

Question 60

Why does being in an agentic state make us more likely to obey?

Answer 60

Because the action no longer has consequences

Question 61

How does obeying in an agentic state help us to maintain a positive self-image?

Answer 61

Becuase you are no longer responsible for your actions - so you don’t feel quilty about their consequences

Question 62

What are binding factors according to agentic state theory?

Answer 62

Once a person has entered the agentic state, binding factors keep them in this state e.g. the threat of losing their job or life. The person may feel fear or worry they’ll appear rude, and these emotions help to bind them to obedience. (threats)

Question 63

According to agentic state theory, obedience has to take place in what kind of system?

Answer 63

Hierarchical social systems (systems where people have different ranks to each other), where individuals will act as agents for and so obey those of perceived higher ranks than themselves.

Question 64

What occurred in the My Lai massacre? (include how agentic state and legitimacy of authority would explain it)

Answer 64

500 civilians were massacred by American soldiers in the Vietnam war on the orders of their superior officers. All bar one were not charged. The one who was, was paroled after 3 years.

Question 65

Agentic state cannot explain the findings of many studies. Give an example of this and explain why it cannot explain those findings. What does this then tell us about agentic state theory as an explanation of obedience?

Two studies

Answer 65

This explanation cannot explain many research findings. For example, it cannot explain why some of Milgram’s participants did not obey (humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey). The explanation also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study of nurses. The explanation would predict that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown low levels of anxiety as they understood their role in a destructive process (they were not responsible and simply acting as an agent for the authority figure). However, this was not the case.

This suggests that the agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience (as the anxiety suggests that the nurses remained in the autonomous state and yet obeyed) and so cannot be considered to be a completely externally valid explanation of obedience.

Question 66

Through cultures

Describe one piece of evidence to support the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience. Explain exactly which parts of the theory it supports

Answer 66

This explanation is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, in Australia only 16% went to the top of the shock generator, and in Germany 85% of participants did. In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

This suggests that the explanation can be considered to be externally valid as it can be used to explain differences in cross-cultural research findings of obedience.

Question 67

What do we mean by a dispositional explanation of obedience?

Answer 67

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality (i.e. Their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.

Question 68

One dispositional explanation of obedience is the authoritarian personality. What is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 68

It is a collection of dispositions/traits that develop from strict parenting, such as being conformist, conventional and dogmatic. Such people have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority.

Question 69

Give examples of characteristics that people have when they have the authoritarian personality

Answer 69

They were very conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status

Question 70

How does the authoritarian personality develop?

Answer 70

Forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting. This parenting style typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of percieved failings. Parents give conditioned love - that is their love and affection for their child depends entirely on how he or she behaves (‘I will love you if…’). Adorno et al argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child. But the child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents becuase they fear punishment. So their fears are displaced onto other who they perceive to be weaker, in a process known as scapegoating. This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong to their social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority. This is a psychodynamic explanation.

Question 71

Describe the procedure and results of Elms and Milgram’s (1966) study of the authoritarian personality.

Answer 71

Procedure: They selected 20 ‘obedient’ participants who had continued to the final shock level, and 20 ‘defiant’ participants who had refused at some point in the experiment. Each participant completed the MMPI scale (measuring a range of personality variables) and the California F scale to specifically measure their levels of authoritarianism. Participants were also asked a series of open- ended questions, including questions about their relationship with their parents during childhood and their attitude to the ‘experimenter’ (authority figure) and the ‘learner’ during their participation in Milgram’s original study.

The researchers found little difference between obedient and defiant participants on MMPI variables. However, they did find higher levels of authoritarianism among those participants classified as obedient, compared with those classified as defiant. They also found significant differences between obedient and defiant participants that were consistent with the Authoritarian Personality. For example, obedient participants reported being less close to their fathers during childhood, and were more likely to describe them in distinctly more negative terms. Obedient participants saw the authority figure in Milgram’s study as clearly more admirable, and the learner as much less so. This was not the case among defiant participants. These findings suggested to Elms and Milgram that the obedient group was higher on the trait of authoritarianism.

However, Elms and Milgram also found some important differences in the characteristics of the Authoritarian Personality and the characteristics of obedient participants. For example, many fully obedient participants reported having a very good relationship with their parents, rather than having grown up in the overly strict environment associated with the Authoritarian Personality.

Question 72

How is the authoritarian personality measured and the limitation of it?

Answer 72

F-scale

Question 73

How does Elms and Milgram’s study both support and undermine the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience?

Answer 73

Findings: Higher levels of authoritarianism (higher F scale scores) –> more obedient, which matches the theory’s idea that having the personality leads to obedience.

Obedient participants reported being less close to their fathers and described them more negatively –> supporting the strict upbringing part of the theory

Saw the authority figure as more admirable and the learner as less so –> supports that they are submissive to authority (and respect authority figures) and have contempt for those they consider inferior to them

Undermines that:
Obedient participants often had good relationships with their parents –> goes against the strict upbringing part of the theory

Question 74

The study is correlational. Why is this an issue? What does this mean for the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience?

Answer 74

We can’t see cause and effect between the authoritarian personality and obedience. There may be a third variable that causes both (e.g. Low levels of education)

Question 75

The study makes use of the F scale to measure the authoritarian personality. Why is this an issue? What does this mean for the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience?

Answer 75

Acquiescence bias (a type of response bias) where people tend to just agree with every answer. This means that we can’t be certain that a high score means someone has the authoritarian personality; instead they may just have a tendency to agree on questionnaires. Therefore any study that uses the scale has a validity issue and so can’t strongly support the theory. (also politically biased)

Question 76

It is thought that the authoritarian personality can explain fewer cases of obedience than the social-psychological explanations. Give an example to support this and explain why this is the case.

Answer 76

This explanation cannot explain many research findings. For example, it cannot explain why some of Milgram’s participants did not obey (humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey). The explanation also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study of nurses. The explanation would predict that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown low levels of anxiety as they understood their role in a destructive process (they were not responsible and simply acting as an agent for the authority figure). However, this was not the case.

This suggests that the agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience (as the anxiety suggests that the nurses remained in the autonomous state and yet obeyed) and so cannot be considered to be a completely externally valid explanation of obedience.

Question 77

What do we mean by resistance to social influence?

Answer 77

Resistance to social influence refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority (i.e. They will not conform or obey). This is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Question 78

There are two theories of resisting social influence: social support and locus of control. Which is the dispositional explanation and which is the situational explanation?

Answer 78

Social support - situational
Locus of control - dispositional

Question 79

What is social support?

Answer 79

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey (i.e. they do not conform or obey)

Question 80

How does social support help people to resist conformity?

Answer 80

Social support breaks the unanimity of the majority. This raises the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate ways of thinking or responding. The ally acts as a model, and makes the individual feel more confident to follow their own conscience and make their own decision. Therefore, the model frees the person to give their own answer, making it easier to not conform.

Question 81

How does social support help people to resist obedience?

Answer 81

In terms of obedience, a dissenter reduces the unanimity of the group. This makes it easier for others to act independently as they free the individual to act from their own conscience. They may not necessarily copy the dissenter’s behaviour. However, they do demonstrate that disobedience is possible as well as how to do it (they challenge the legitimate authority figure), which makes it easier for others to disobey. Milgram did a variation where the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. Obedience dropped to 10%

Question 82

What is locus of control?

Answer 82

Locus of control refers to the sense we have about what directs the events in our lives.

Question 83

What is an external locus of control?

Answer 83

People with an external locus of control believe that it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (e.g. fate) e.g. if they failed a test, they might blame the textbook or luck that the questions were hard.

Question 84

Which type of locus of control is more likely to resist social influence? Why is this the case?

Answer 84

Internal

• They take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, so they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others.
• They tend to be more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval. Again, this means that they will trust their own beliefs and decisions and thus resist pressures from others.
• They are achievement-oriented and so are more likely to become leaders than followers. Leaders have all of the characteristics above, which make them less likely to obey.

Question 85

How does Asch’s unanimity variation support social support as way of resisting conformity?

Answer 85

In Asch’s unanimity variation, he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others – sometimes the new confederate gave the correct answer and sometimes he gave a different wrong one. Asch found that that the presence of the dissenting confederate giving the correct answer meant that conformity was reduced to 5%, and 9% when the dissenting confederate gave a different wrong answer.

This suggests that the confederate acted as a model, breaking the unanimity of the majority. This raised the possibility that there are other potential answers, making the participants feel more confident to follow their own conscience and not conform (answering the question correctly). This therefore supports the validity of the theory as an explanation of resisting social influence.

Question 86

There is evidence to suggest that the position of the person providing social support matters when resisting conformity. What did this evidence find and what does this tell us about social support as an explanation of resisting conformity?

Answer 86

Milgram conducted a variation of his obedience study where there were two confederates in the same room as the teacher. The confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. Milgram found that obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10%.

This suggests that the dissenters freed the participant to act from their own conscience. They demonstrated that disobedience was possible, as well as how to do it (challenging the legitimate authority figure - the experimenter), which made it easier for the participant to disobey, supporting the validity of the theory

Question 87

Oil smear campaign

There is evidence to support that having an internal locus of control helps people to resist obedience. What did this evidence find and what does this tell us about social support as an explanation of resisting obedience?

Ignore

Answer 87

Gamson et al. (1982) put participants were in put into groups and were asked to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. They were allowed to discuss what they were asked to do. In the study, 88% rebelled.

This suggests that as soon as one person decided that they were not going to obey the authority figure and contribute to the smear campaign, they acted as a dissenter which freed the other participants to act from their own consciences. The dissenter demonstrated that disobedience was possible as well as how to do it, which made it easier for other participants to disobey, supporting the validity of the theory.

Question 88

Internal vs external

There is evidence to support that social support helps people to resist obedience. What did this evidence do and find and what does this tell us about social support as an explanation of resisting obedience?

Ignore

Answer 88

Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of externals did i.e. internals showed greater resistance to authority.

This supports that an internal locus of control is linked to increased resistance and therefore that the explanation may be valid. As this was done in a controlled environment, cause (presence of others) and effect (resistance levels) can be determined, supporting the internal validity of the explanation more strongly.

Question 89

The role of having an internal locus of control helping us to resist social influence may have been exaggerated. How?

Answer 89

Rotter (1982) suggested that the role of LOC in resisting social influence may have been exaggerated as it only seems to have an impact on resistance in unfamiliar/new situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important. This means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal locus of control.

This suggests that the explanation may not be completely valid because it can’t explain resistance to social influence in all situations, only new ones.

Question 90

In our society, we have become more likely to resist obedience but also more likely to have an external locus of control. Why is this a problem for the theory?

Answer 90

Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40-year period. They found that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more external.

This challenges the validity of the link between an internal locus of control and increasing resistant behaviour. This could be due to our changing society where many events are outside of our personal control. Therefore, having an external locus of control may be more protective for our self- esteem rather than accepting responsibility for things that we cannot control. As such, whilst the explanation may not be completely valid in explaining resistance to obedience, it has face validity in explaining the change in personality over time.

Question 91

What do we mean by minority influence?

Answer 91

This is when one person or a small group of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviour

Question 92

Name and define the three factors that help a minority to be persuasive.

Answer 92

Commitment - the minority needs to show dedication to their position e.g. by making personal sacrifices. This shows that they’re not acting out of self-interest and draws even more attention to their views which makes the majority rethink theirs.

Flexibility - the minority needs to accept the possibility of compromise and accept valid counterarguments. This is so that they don’t seem unreasonable as this is off-putting for the majority.

Consistency - the minority needs to keep the same beliefs over time, and their members need to share the same beliefs. This draws attention to their views and makes the majority rethink theirs.

Question 93

If a minority demonstrates all of these factors, how does their view then become a majority viewpoint? Include the key terms internalisation/conversion, snowball effect and deeper processing in your answer.

Answer 93

These factors cause the majority to think about the message more carefully as it conflicts with their own (deeper processing), and they may then be persuaded. This leads to internalisation (conversion). The majority have therefore publicly and privately changed their attitudes and behaviours. As such, more and more people start to become persuaded (snowball effect) until the majority’s viewpoint aligns with that of the minority.

Question 94

Blue and green slides

Describe the procedure, results and conclusion of Moscovici et al.’s study.

Answer 94

Aim:
To investigate the role of a consistent minority upon the opinions of a majority in an unambiguous situation.

Procedure:
Female participants were placed into 32 groups of six. In each group, there were four real participants and two confederates. Participants were told that it was an investigation into perception. Each group was shown 36 blue slides, with filters varying the intensity of the colour and were asked to judge the colour of each slide. In the consistent condition, the confederates answered wrongly that all of the slides were green. In the inconsistent condition, the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue. In a control condition (6 naïve participants and no confederates), participants called the slides blue throughout. Answers were given verbally in the presence of the rest of the group (like in Asch’s study). 32% answered incorrectly at least once.

Findings:
There was an 8.42% agreement with the minority in the consistent condition, suggesting that the consistent minority influenced the participants to say green on over 8% of trials. Thirty-two percent of participants agreed with the minority at least once. The inconsistent minority exerted very little influence as there was only 1.25% agreement in the inconsistent condition. The results for this group did not differ significantly from the control group.
After the main study was over, participants were asked individually to sort 16 coloured discs into either blue or green. Three of these discs were unambiguously from the blue end of the colour spectrum and three were unambiguously from the green end. The remaining ten discs were ambiguous in that they might be considered either blue or green. To be able to do this, participants had to establish a threshold point where everything one side of that point was blue and everything on the other side was green. Participants who had been in the consistent and inconsistent conditions set their thresholds at different points with the result that those in the consistent condition judged more of the discs to be green than those in the inconsistent condition. This effect was even greater for those who hadn’t gone along with the minority during the experiment, suggesting that the initial influence was more at a private than public level.

Conclusions:
Although the consistent condition of 8.42% seems a small figure, it is significantly higher than the inconsistent condition figure of 1.25% and so suggests that although minority influence is relatively small, consistency is the important variable.

Question 95

Which factor of minority influence does Moscovici et al.’s study support? How?

Answer 95

Consistency - 8.42% agreement with the minority in the consistent condition and only 1.25% agreement in the inconsistent condition.

Question 96

Moscovici et al.’s study has been criticised for lacking mundane realism in terms of how it studied minority influence. How? Why is this an issue for the theory of minority influence?

Answer 96

There are flaws in the Moscovici et al. research used to support minority influence. Minority influence research such as Moscovici et al.’s involved an artificial task - identifying the colour of a slide. This is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of the majority in real life. The consequences of minority influence in real-life are often much more important e.g. jury decision-making can be a matter of life and death for the defendant.

This is a limitation of minority influence as it suggests that findings such as Moscovici et al.’s are lacking in external validity and so are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-life situations.

Question 97

How are real minorities more complex than Moscovici et al.’s definition in their study? Why is this an issue for the theory of minority influence?

Ignore

Answer 97

Real-life minority influence situations are much more complicated than in studies where the minority is defined in terms of numbers. For example, majorities often have more power and status than minorities. Minorities are very committed to their causes and have to be because of the very hostile opposition that they face. They can also be tight-knit groups who know each other very well and frequently turn to each other for support.

This suggests that research on minority influence does not reflect the complexity of real-life minority influence and therefore the results may not be externally valid and so may only tell us about minority influence in contrived situations. Therefore, the results may be of limited use in terms of real-world applications.

Question 98

Describe evidence to support deeper processing in minority influence. What does this tell us about the theory?

Ignore

Answer 98

There is evidence to support the central process of minority influence (that the viewpoint is more deeply processed and so the majority become converted to the minority’s viewpoint).Researchers gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support. One group of participants heard a minority agree with the initial view while another group heard this from a majority group. Participants were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again. They found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group (i.e. they stuck to the minority’s views) rather than if they were shared with a majority group.

This suggests that the minority’s message was more deeply processed and had a more enduring (long-lasting) effect. This supports the central argument about how the minority influence process works.

Question 99

Describe evidence to support internalisation/conversion in minority influence. What does this tell us about the theory?

Answer 99

There is evidence to support that minority influence occurs through conversion as participants were privately persuaded by the minority. In a variation of Moscovici et al.’s study, participants were allowed to write down their answers so their responses were private rather than public. Private agreement with the minority position was greater in these circumstances.

It appears that the majority were persuaded by the minority’s argument and changed their own views, but were reluctant to admit to this publicly. Moscovici thought that this was because participants probably didn’t want to be associated with a minority position for fear of being considered radical, awkward or weird. This suggests that the minority have internalised the view and been converted to the viewpoint, and so supports the central argument about how the minority influence process works. However, it also suggests that minorities may not be as effective at creating public changes in position.

Question 100

What is social change?

Answer 100

Social change is when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs or ways of doing things.

Question 101

How is social change different to minority influence?

Answer 101

Minority influence is therefore different to social change because it only occurs through minorities, and only persuades individuals or groups to change their attitudes, beliefs or behaviours rather than whole societies.

Question 102

Define drawing attention and how this leads to social change

Answer 102

Drawing attention to an issue e.g. marching, campaigning etc. This provides social proof of the problem and makes people consider the message.

Question 103

Define Consistency and flexibility and how this leads to social change

Answer 103

Keeping the same message over time (as it draws more attention to the issue and so people are more likely to be persuaded), but being willing to compromise so as to not appear dogmatic.

Question 104

Define deeper processing and how this leads to social change

Answer 104

The majority experience cognitive conflict – they have two conflicting ideas about the issue (theirs and the minority’s) that they are motivated to resolve. Therefore, they think more deeply about the minority opinion, and can be persuaded.

Question 105

Define augmentation principle and how this leads to social change

Answer 105

The minority demonstrates commitment through sacrificing something e.g. freedom, reputation, their own property. This draws even more attention to the issue and demonstrates that they are not acting out of their own self-interest, which reinforces their message and persuades people.

Question 106

Define snowball effect and how this leads to social change

Answer 106

More and more people become persuaded by the message until social change occurs (they have internalised the view, having been publicly and privately persuaded).

Question 107

Define social change and how this leads to social change

Answer 107

Majority adopt the new beliefs or attitudes

Question 108

Define social crypto amnesia and how it leads to social change

Answer 108

People conform to the new majority position, or if a new law is put into place, they obey the new law

Question 109

What are the stages for social change?

Answer 109

a. Drawing attention
b. Consistency and flexibility
c. Deeper processing
d. Augmentation principle
e. Snowball effect
f. Social change
g. Conformity/obedience
h. Social cryptoamnesia

Question 110

How can Moscovici et al.’s study be used to support how social change occurs through minority influence?

Answer 110

There is research evidence to support the role of consistency in minority influence. Moscovici et al. found that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion [see your prep work notes for further details to include]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies found that minorities who were seen to be consistent were most influential.
This supports that consistency is an important factor in the effectiveness of minority

Question 111

There is evidence to suggest that Moscovici et al. May be wrong about the idea that minorities make people more deeply process messages than majorities do. Why is this thought to be the case? What does this tell us about the theory of social change through minority influence?

Answer 111

Moscovici argues that minority and majority influence involve different cognitive processes, with minority influence causing individuals to think more deeply about an issue than majority influence. But this may not be the case. Other researchers have found evidence that majorities cause deeper processing. This is because we like to believe that others share our views and think in the same ways as us. When we find that a majority believes something different, then we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning. Therefore, a central element of the process of minority influence has been challenged and may be incorrect. Consequently, this casts doubt on the validity of the explanation of social change.

Question 112

Why is it thought that minorities have limited potential for creating social change? What does this tell us about the theory of social change through minority influence?

Answer 112

The potential for minorities to influence social change is often limited because they are seen as ‘deviant’ in the eyes of the majority. Members of the majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority position because they do not want to be seen as deviant themselves. Researchers have found that participants were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with stereotypical and minority ‘environmentalists.’ They rated environmental activists and feminists in negative ways, describing them as ‘tree huggers’ and ‘men haters.’ The message of the minority would then have very little impact because the focus of the majority’s attention would be the source of the message (the deviant minority) rather than the message itself. In trying to bring about social change, minorities face the double challenge of avoiding being portrayed as deviants and also making people directly embrace their position. This suggests that the effects are fragile and minority influence’s role in social change is very limited, but also that flexibility is vitally important in social change.

Question 113

Social change though minority influence tends to happen very slowly when it does happen. Give an example of this and explain what this tells us about the theory of social change through minority influence?

Answer 113

Social changes through minority influence happen slowly when they do happen. For example, it has taken decades for attitudes towards smoking to shift. Some researchers argue that the effects of minority influence are likely to be indirect because the majority is influenced only on matters related to an issue at hand, and not central to the issue itself, and delayed because the effects may not be seen for some time. This suggests that the effects are fragile and so minority influence’s role in social change is very limited. Although, it does suggest that minorities can lead to social change over time, supporting that the theory has some validity.

Question 114

Social change can also occur through majority influence (conformity). There are two proposals for how this can occur. Explain both.

Answer 114

Option 1: Campaigns are based on NSI. Social change occurs by drawing attention to what the majority is actually doing. People then conform as a result of NSI, leading to social change.

Option 2: In Asch’s variation unanimity variation, he showed that breaking the power of the majority can encourage others to do likewise. This could potentially lead to social change too.

Question 115

Social change can also occur through obedience. Explain how.

Answer 115

Campaigns are based on gradual commitment – getting people to agree to something small which builds up to something bigger. People therefore ‘drift’ into a new behaviour, resulting in social change.

Question 116

Asch’s study is a flawed study of conformity. Explain how. What does this tell us about the theory of social change through majority influence?

Answer 116

Explanations of how conformity leads to social change draws heavily on the studies of Asch. You would then choose one of the weaknesses of his study from L1 to describe here. This therefore casts doubt on the validity of the conclusion from the study that a majority can be persuasive due to normative social influence, and so suggests that from the research we can’t strongly support the role of normative social influence (conformity) in social change.

Question 117

Describe evidence to support that social change can occur through majority influence. Explain exactly how it supports the theory.

Answer 117

Research has supported the role of social influences process in social change. Some researchers investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. They hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for one month. The key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people’s behaviour. They found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group. This suggests that conformity can lead to social change through normative social influence (by drawing attention to what the majority is really doing and so people conform so as to not be rejected/be accepted) and therefore that the theory is valid.

Question 118

Social change through majority influence can have a boomerang effect. Give an example of this and explain what it tells us about the theory of social change through majority influence.

Unintended consequences

Answer 118

Social change campaigns based on NSI may have unintended consequences. The widespread nature of the approach means that those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm will also receive the message. For those individuals who already engage in the constructive behaviour being advocated (e.g. drinking less than the norm), a normative message can be a spur to engaging in more destructive behaviour. Researchers have found evidence of what they refer to as the boomerang effect, where a campaign was effective in getting heavy energy users to use less electricity, but it also caused those who had used less than the norm to increase their usage. This suggests that the theory is valid in that NSI leads to social change, but that these processes should be used with caution because of the potential negative consequences.