Social Influence

Question 1

Define conformity

Answer 1

A change in a persons behaviour or opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Question 2

Types of conformity (3)

Answer 2

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

Question 3

Define compliance

Answer 3

Going along with others in public but privately not changing your personal opinion. Compliance is a superficial change, this means that this behaviour/opinion stops when the group aren’t present.

Question 4

Define identification

Answer 4

We conform to the opinions/behaviours of a group because there’s something about the group that we value. We identify with the group so we want to be a part of it. Publicly change our opinions to achieve this even when the group isn’t there but we don’t privately agree

Question 5

Define internalisation

Answer 5

Occurs when people genuinely accept group norms. This result in private as well as public change of opinions/behaviours. Change of opinions persists even in the absence of the group

Question 6

Explanations of conformity (2)

Answer 6

Informational social influence
Normative social influence

Question 7

Define ISI

Answer 7

You follow the group because you want to be right. It’s a cognitive process (you think it through), most common in new situations

Question 8

Define NSI

Answer 8

About whats normal or typical of a group. We want to gain social approval from a group (it’s an emotional process). Most likely to occur where there are strangers so you may feel concerned about rejection

Question 9

Evaluation-Research support for ISI

Answer 9

Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. 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 them mathematical ability as poor.
This shows that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer, this is a strength as it’s an example of the outcomes predicted by ISI explanations. We look to other people and assume they know better than us and must be right.

Question 10

Evaluation- Individual differences in NSI

Answer 10

Some research shows NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way e.g. people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those that care more about being liked (affiliatiors). McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform.
This shows that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others and therefore there’s individual differences in the way that people conform.

Question 11

Evaluation- ISI&NSI work together

Answer 11

(Deutch and Gerard’s 2-process approach: behaviour is either NSI or ISI) but often, both processes are involved e.g conformity is reduced when there’s one other dissenting participant in the asch experiment. This dissenter may reduce power of NSI as they provide social support, or reduce power of ISI as there’s an alternative source of information.
It shows that it’s not always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work (usually the case in lab studies) which casts doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as a 2-process operation independently in conforming behaviour.

Question 12

Individual differences in ISI

Answer 12

Asch (1955) found that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found very little conformity. Individual differences are a limitation because the findings can’t be generalised to everyone.

Question 13

Research support for NSI

Answer 13

Asch (1951) found that many of his participants went along with the clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When asked they said they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When asch repeated the study but asked participants to write down their answers instead, conformity rates fell to 12.5%.
This shows a clear link between conforming and the need for social approval

Question 14

What is the Aim of Asch’s study

Answer 14

Asch (1951) conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

Question 15

What is the procedure of Asch’s study

Answer 15

-Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity
-50 male students from Swarthmore college in USA participated in a vision test
-Using a line judgement task, Asch put each participant in a room with 7 confederates
-Confederates agreed in advance upon responses, participant was led to believe that the other 7 participants were also real participants like themselves
-Each person had to say out loud which option was most like the target line (obvious answer)
-participant always gave their answer last
-18 trials in total, confederates gave the wrong answer for 12/18 (critical trials)
-control condition only had real participant (baseline first comparison)

Question 16

What were the results of Asch’s study

Answer 16

-32% conformed with clearly incorrect answer on majority critical trials
-over the 12 critical trials, 75% conformed at least once, 25% didn’t conform
-in control group, less than 1% gave the incorrect answer

Question 17

What was the conclusion of Asch’s study

Answer 17

When interviewed, most participants said they didn’t really believe their conforming answers but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought ‘peculiar’. A few said they really did believe the groups answers were correct

Question 18

What were the 3 variations of Asch’s study

Answer 18

Task difficulty
Group size
Unanimity

Question 19

Explain the task difficulty variation of Asch’s study (state effect on conformity and why)

Answer 19

The task was made more difficult by using lines that were much closer in length to each other and the comparison line.
This increased conformity due to ISI as the lines are harder to tell apart causing participants to doubt their own answers

Question 20

Explain the group size variation of Asch’s study (state effect on conformity and why)

Answer 20

The size of the majority was increased (up to 16 confederates against 1 participant).
This increases conformity but different group sizes only have an impact up to a certain point

Question 21

Explain the unanimity variation of Asch’s study (state effect on conformity and why)

Answer 21

The presence of another non-conforming person
This decreases conformity to 25% because if the whole group are unanimous then conformity would increase but the presence of a dissenter will increase the participants confidence in their answer

Question 22

Asch evaluation- biased sample

Answer 22

Asch’s study used only males from a university population meaning they came from a better socio economic background as they’re all educated
This is a problem because it means the study can’t be generalised to females or others of very different ages. The study is representative of an individualistic culture so can’t be generalised to other countries.

Question 23

Asch evaluation- artificial task

Answer 23

Line judgements were used
This is a problem because the study lacks ecological validity as the line judgements can’t be applied to real life situations and therefore the findings aren’t necessarily representative of conformity in different everyday situations meaning they’re not accurate

Question 24

Asch evaluation- Study lacks temporarily validity

Answer 24

The study was conducted in the 1950s just after WW2, after this period, people had more national pride and therefore higher levels of conformity
This is a problem because the findings can’t be applied to modern day situations due to social and cultural changes in society since the 1950s meaning the findings aren’t accurate for todays society

Question 25

Asch evaluation- alternative research fails to support the findings

Answer 25

Perrin and Spencer use science and engineering students instead and found lower conformity levels This is a problem because it shows that the findings of Asch’s study can’t be generalised to different groups of people, there’s an issue with consistency of the results from the same experiment.

Question 26

Asch evaluation- ethical issues

Answer 26

Participants were led to believe that the other 7 confederates were also real participants like themselves This is a problem because the participants were deceived and couldn’t give informed consent as they didn’t know the aims of the study. Also, participants might have felt embarrassed as they couldn’t understand why their answer was wrong, this is a form of psychological harm.

Question 27

What is the aim of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 27

To investigate how readily people would conform to new social roles by observing how quickly people would adopt the roles of guard or prisoner in a role-playing exercise that stimulated prison life

Question 28

What is the procedure of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 28

Well adjusted healthy male volunteers paid $15 a day to take part in a 2-week stimulation study of prison life Volunteers were given psychometric tests to establish their adjustment They were randomly allocated to the roles of guards/prisoners Local police helped by ‘arresting’ 9 prisoners at their homes without warning. They were taken, blindfolded, to the prison, stripped and sprayed with disinfectant, given smocks to wear and their prison number to memorise. From then on they were referred to by number only There were 3 guards who wore khaki uniforms, dark glasses and carried wooden batons No physical aggression was permitted

Question 29

What are the findings of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 29

The guards harassed the prisoners and conformed to their perceived roles with such zeal that the study had to be discontinued after 6 days Prisoners rebelled against the guards after 2 days, guards quelled the rebellion using fire extinguishers Some prisoners became depressed and anxious, one prisoner had to be released after only 1 day and 2 more had to be released on the 4th day

Question 30

Conclusion of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 30

The ‘prison environment’ was important in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour (none had shown sadistic tendencies before the study) People will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are strongly stereotyped The roles people play shape their attitudes and behaviours. If It took only 6 days to alter behaviour of participants in study, then the roles we play IRL will have even more far reaching effects

Question 31

Zimbardo evaluation- lab study +

Answer 31

No extraneous variables and very controlled environment so we can be certain that any effect on the DV is due to manipulating the IV results are more reliable Standardised procedure, easy to replicate and similar results will be produced

Question 32

Zimbardo evaluation- participants were randomly assigned +

Answer 32

Reduces bias Takes away demand characteristics of participants Increases internal validity (individual differences are reduced)

Question 33

Zimbardo evaluation- Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued participants were playing acting and not actually conforming to social roles

Answer 33

These performances were based on stereotypes of how they thought they were supposed to behave This is a problem as it means they weren’t actually testing the aims of the study and rather people’s knowledge of the social roles they were conforming to which decreases the validity of the study However, Zimbardo argues that the study was very true to life and prisoners even spoke just about the prison

Question 34

Zimbardo evaluation- Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour

Answer 34

Fromm focused on more dispositional personality factors and only 1/3 of the guards were brutal so Zimbardo may have overstated his conclusion that everyone conformed to their roles Zimbardo is studying situational conformity and is completely ignoring dispositional conformity so his findings aren’t representative of conformity as a whole

Question 35

Zimbardo evaluation- Reicher and Haslam (2006) replicated the study and had very different findings to Zimbardo

Answer 35

Prisoners eventually took control, they used social identity theory (when you go into a social setting you adopt a similar social identity), to explain this and said that guards failed to develope a shared social identity as a cohesive group but the prisoners did so they had more control This questions the consistency of Zimbardo’s findings

Question 36

Definition of obedience

Answer 36

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour isn’t forthcoming

Question 37

Aim of Milgrams study

Answer 37

To see how much an average person would follow orders, in a life or death situation, given by an authority figure

Question 38

What is the procedure of Milgrams study

Answer 38

Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment, 40 males aged 20-50 whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for turning up At beginning they were introduced to another participant who was a confederate They drew straws to determine their roles (fixed so confederate was always the learner) Experimenter dressed in grey lab coat 2 rooms in Yale interaction laboratory, one for learner the other for teacher&experimenter Learner learns word pairs and is tested by teacher, teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the lvl of shock each time (15-450V) When teacher refused to administer shock, experimenter was to give a series of prods to ensure they continued

Question 39

What were the 4 prods given in Milgrams study

Answer 39

1. Please continue 2. The experiment requires you to continue 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue 4. You have no other choice but to continue

Question 40

What were the findings of Milgrams study

Answer 40

No participants stopped before 300V 12.5% stopped at 300V (5 participants) 65% continued all the way to 450V Participants showed extreme tension where many sweated, trembled and stuttered

Question 41

What was the conclusion of Milgrams study

Answer 41

People will obey a perceived figure of authority. This is true for the majority of people

Question 42

Milgram evaluation- low internal validity

Answer 42

Orne and Holland (1968) said participants didn’t really believe in the set up and guessed they weren’t really electric shocks (demand characteristics) Gina Perry (2013) confirms this as she reported that many participants had doubts However, Sheridan and King (1972) supported Milgram and conducted the experiment using a puppy where 54% of men and 100% of women went the full way, showing both genders obey

Question 43

Milgram evaluation- good external validity

Answer 43

Milgram argued the lab environment accurately affected wider authority relationships in real life between experimenter and teacher Hofling (1966) (real life situation, field experiment) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found very high levels of obedience to unjustified demands made by doctors over the phone (21/22 nurses administered the medicine to the patient) So the findings of Milgram can be generalised to other situations

Question 44

Milgram evaluation- supporting replication

Answer 44

‘Game of death’ doccumentary, reality TV in France 2010 includes a replication of Milgrams study as participants were ordered to give electric shocks, by the presenter inform of an audience, which they thought were real. 80% of them gave the maximum of 460V to an unconscious man This supports Milgrams study

Question 45

Milgram evaluation- ethical issues

Answer 45

Baumrind (1964) said Milgram was deceitful as he led participants to believe the roles of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were random when in fact they weren’t Participants were also told ‘you have no other choice but to continue’ which removes their right to withdraw Participants weren’t made aware of the aims so couldn’t give informed consent before experiment There was no protection from psychological harm that many participants experienced due to the levels of anxiety and stressful conditions

Question 46

Milgram evaluation- Social identity theory

Answer 46

Theory states that obedience lies in group identification (in Milgrams experiment, the participants identified with the experimenter and the science behind the study) Obedience fell when the participants began to identify more with the victim/another group Haslam and Reicher (2012) found that participants behaved differently when 1/4 probes was used (4th probe demands obedience)

Question 47

What are the 3 explanations for obedience

Answer 47

Dispositional explanations (personality) Situational explanations (situation) Social-psychological explanations

Question 48

What were Milgrams 3 situational variables

Answer 48

Proximity Location Uniform

Question 49

Explain Milgrams situational variable for proximity

Answer 49

Originally, teachers and learner were in adjoining rooms so teacher could hear learner scream but couldn’t see him In proximity variation, they were in the same room Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40% Teacher has to force learners hand onto shock and obedience fell to 30% In remote instruction variation, experimenter gave orders over the phone and obedience fell to 20.5%, participants often pretended to give shocks

Question 50

Explain Milgrams situational variable for location

Answer 50

Milgram conducted the study in a run down building rather than a nice university (which gave the experiment more legitimacy and authority) Experimenter has less authority in this location as they were perceived as less legitimate Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%

Question 51

Explain Milgrams situational variable for uniform

Answer 51

This was a standardised procedure Originally experimenter wore a lab coat as a sign of authority, therefore entitled to obedience In this variation, experimenter was called away for a phone call and the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes Obedience dropped to 20%

Question 52

Milgram situational variable (uniform) evaluation- research support

Answer 52

Bickman (1974) supports findings 3 confederates dressed in; jacket&tie, milkman’s outfit and a security guards uniform Confederates asked passers-by’s to pick up litter or ask for a coin for the parking meter People were 2x as likely to obey the person dress as a security guard than dressed in a jacket&tie This shows that uniform conveys the authority

Question 53

Deifine socio psychological

Answer 53

The effect of our social and environmental context on our psyche e.g the effects of another on our capacity to obey

Question 54

Explain agentic state

Answer 54

People believe they’re acting for someone else and so aren’t responsible (agent for someone) An agent also experiences high anxiety/ moral strain when they realise that what they’re doing is wrong but they feel powerless

Question 55

Explain autonomous state and agentic shift

Answer 55

The autonomous state is the opposit of agentic, it’s being independent/ free The shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift- this occurs when someone perceives someone else to be in authority

Question 56

What are binding factors

Answer 56

Aspects of the situation that allow the individual to ignore the reality, placing blame

Question 57

Explain legitimacy of authority

Answer 57

Society is hierarchical We accept authority figures and obey them (we learn this from childhood) Grated power Hand over control to them Destructive authority- when authority becomes destructive, there can be problems e.g Hitler is an example of destructive authority

Question 58

Social psychological factors evaluation- supporting evidence for this explanation

Answer 58

Blass and Schmitt 2001 They showed a film to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm of the learner and the students blamed the experimenter This is a strength as it shows that the responsibility of the actions shouldn’t be felt by the participant (agent). This is because the students understand that the participant felt powerless in the situation and so despite experiencing moral strain, still obeyed orders

Question 59

Social psychological factors evaluation- disputing research (doesn’t explain many research findings)

Answer 59

Hofling et al: agentic state says that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should’ve shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgrams participants as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case This shows that the agentic state theory doesn’t account for people who don’t experience moral strain

Question 60

Social psychological factors evaluation- cultural differences

Answer 60

Kilham and Mann (1974) and Mantell (1971) did Milgrams study in Australia and found that only 16% went all the way up the voltage scale, Mantell found in Germany, 85% went all the way up This shows that legitimacy of authority is classed differently in different cultures

Question 61

Define dispositional

Answer 61

Any explanation of behaviour that hilights the importance of the individuals personality

Question 62

Define authoritarian personality

Answer 62

A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority, such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors

Question 63

What is the aim of Adornos study

Answer 63

He wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust

Question 64

What is the procedure of Adornos study

Answer 64

2000 middle class white Americans Looked at their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups Investigated this by using the F-scale (Fascism scale) which is still used to measure authoritarian personality

Question 65

What are the findings of Adornos study (4)

Answer 65

- people with authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’ - they were conscious of their own and others’ status - they show high respect for those in high authority - Authoritarian people also has a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people and had fixed stereotypes about other groups

Question 66

What are authoritarian personality traits

Answer 66

- Hate uncertainty (prefer cognitive closure) - Prejudiced and callous towards others - Strict and disciplined - Loyal - Black and white thinking - Rigid ideological outlook

Question 67

Where does an authoritarian personality come from

Answer 67

- Formed during childhood as a result of harsh parenting - Parents will only love children if they behave (conditional love parenting style) - Can create resentment, hostility and fear - Psychodynamic: displace fear and hatred to other inferior people as can’t tell parents they hate being treated like so

Question 68

Adorno evaluation- research support for authoritarian personality

Answer 68

- Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted post-experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in Milgrams original study to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality (obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale) - However this only shows a correlation between 2 variables meaning we’re uncertain as to whether authoritarian personalities cause obedience or vice versa. This means that the dispositional explanation for obedience is incomplete, or it doesn’t have enough credible scientific data for a causal link

Question 69

Adorno evaluation- limited explanation and other explanations may be more appropriate

Answer 69

-E.g proximity to authority figure may be a better explanation for obedience, as seen in Milgrams study, when the authority figure wasn’t in the room with the ppt, obedience levels decreased. Also, when given an order by someone in everyday clothes, obedience also decreased - This shows that the dispositional explanation can’t account for all possible reasons as to why someone would obey, and perhaps an explanation including both dispositional and situational would be more appropriate in explaining obedience

Question 70

Adorno evaluation- political bias due to uneven representation of all politics

Answer 70

- Christie and Jahoda (1954) argue that left-wing authoritarianism e.g Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism is extremely similar to right-wing authoritarianism. Both ideologies are on extreme ends of the political spectrum and emphasises the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority - This is a limitation of Adorno’s theory as he doesn’t account for extreme leftism in the F-scale and therefore may be mistaking left-wing extremism (communism) as fascism, which is negatively biased towards those who score highly on the F-scale. The issues with this scale therefore question the internal validity of the actual scale in determining authoritarian personality

Question 71

Define resisting social influence

Answer 71

To not conform/ obey someone else/ a group of people

Question 72

What are the 2 explanations for resisting social influence

Answer 72

- Social support (obedience and conformity) - Locus of control (internal and external)

Question 73

Explain social support in terms of conformity and obedience using examples

Answer 73

- Social support can reduce conformity (if others aren’t conforming, we’re less likely to as well) e.g. Asch found that if the non-confirming participant starts to conform again then so will the participant - It can also help people resist obedience (pressure to obey reduced if another disobeys too) e.g obedience dropped in Milgrams experiment from 65-10% when there was a disobedient confederate joining the participant

Question 74

What is an internal and external locus of control (Rotter 1966)

Answer 74

- Internal: they believe their in control of their own lives e.g if you don’t do well it’s because you didn’t work hard enough - External: they believe others are in control of either lives, e.g if they don’t do well it’s because they had a bad teacher

Question 75

Characteristics of people with an internal locus of control

Answer 75

- More likely to resist obedience and conformity - Take personal responsibility for their actions (more-likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and resist pressures from others) - Usually self confident, more achievement orientated and more intelligent

Question 76

Resisting social influence evaluation- supporting research to conformity

Answer 76

- Allen and Levine 1971 found conformity decreased when there was one dissenting participant in Asch-style replication, especially if dissenter wore thick glasses and said they had difficulty with their vision - Shows that explanation for social support has validated evidence, when we’re backed up by a fellow dissenter, we don’t feel the need to conform. This is a strength as it could be used to explain real-world resistance to conformity e.g (example of conformity)

Question 77

Resisting social influence evaluation- supporting research for resistance to obedience

Answer 77

- Gamson et al (1982)- participants asked to produce evidence to help an oil company produce a smear campaign, researchers found higher lvls of resistance compared to Milgrams study possibly due to participants being in groups to discuss (29/33 groups disobeyed) - research provides more realistic views on resisting social pressures. Therefore, the idea that social support explains resistance to obedience is reliable due to consistent results from the study (29/33)

Question 78

Resisting social influence evaluation- research support for locus of control

Answer 78

- Holland 1967 found 37%internals refused to obey maximum shock lvl in a Milgram-type study, compared to 23% externals, showing a link between LOC and resistance to obedience - This shows, depending on your disposition, you’re more/less likely to obey. Feeling personally responsible for consequences (internal), whereas externals don’t place responsibility on higher authority so don’t suffer consequences, meaning LOC can explain resistance to social influence.

Question 79

Resistance to social influence evaluation- contradictory evidence for LOC

Answer 79

- Twenge 2004 found that over time (40 yrs), Americans have become more resistant to obedience but have also become more external in their LOC - can be seen in prevalence of horoscope and star sign use to explain behaviour of individuals in a younger generation whilst also being resistant to obedience. This goes against the LOC explanation and questions it’s temporal validity

Question 80

Define minority influence

Answer 80

Refers to situations where one person or a small group influences the beliefs and behaviours of other people (minority is likely to lead to internalisation)

Question 81

Examples of minority influence (3)

Answer 81

- suffragettes - civil rights movement - waves of feminism

Question 82

Moscovici et al 1969- Aim

Answer 82

To see whether a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test

Question 83

Moscovici et al 1969- procedure

Answer 83

- 32 groups of 6 women (2 from each group were confederates) - Group was shown 36 blue coloured slides, which all varied slightly in their intensity - Participants were asked to verbally describe the colour of each slide, with the confederates answering first - Confederates consistently said the slides were green

Question 84

Moscovici et al 1969- Findings

Answer 84

- Participants agreed with the minority that the slides were green 8% of the time - 32% conformed to the minority at least once - However, when confederates answered inconsistently, conformity fell to 1.25%

Question 85

Moscovici et al 1969- Conclusion

Answer 85

Minority influence can make the majority conform, however, consistency is very important

Question 86

Factors affecting minority influence (5)

Answer 86

- Size of minority - Confidence in beliefs - Sharing common ground with majority - Acting from principal - sacrifice

Question 87

How does the size of the minority affect minority influence

Answer 87

As the size of the minority increases, so does their influence

Question 88

How does confidence in beliefs affect minority influence

Answer 88

Minorities who show belief in their point of view have a greater influence

Question 89

How does sharing common ground with the majority affect minority influence

Answer 89

The more common ground a minority has with a majority, the greater their influence; this could be because the majority will find it easier to relate to the minorities point of view

Question 90

How does acting from principal affect minority influence

Answer 90

If a minority is seen to be acting from morals and principals, their influence increases. This could be because it seems more justified and morally correct if they have sound beliefs

Question 91

How does sacrifice affect minority influence

Answer 91

A minority has a greater influence if they are seen to make personal sacrifices. This could be because it persuades others that the minority POV must be correct if they’re willing to go to such extreme lengths to show it

Question 92

Processes in minority influence (3)

Answer 92

- Consistency - Commitment - Flexibility

Question 93

What are the 2 types of consistency

Answer 93

Consistency in the minority view increases the interest from others -Synchronic consistency: minority all saying the same thing (e.g. suffragette movement) -Dichronic consistency: Been saying the same thing for some time

Question 94

What is the augmentation principal- commitment

Answer 94

- Minorities can be extreme - There must be some risk to the minority as this demonstrates commitment to the cause - Majority then pay more attention - This is called the augmentation principal e.g just stop oil movement

Question 95

How does flexibility affect minority influence

Answer 95

- Nemeth (1986) said consistency can be negatively perceived as this can be seen as dogmatic and unbending - This can be off-putting - Minority need to be prepared to adapt their view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments