Social Influence Flashcards
(106 cards)
1
Q
What is conformity?
A
Conformity refers to behaviour change as a result of real (explicit) or imagined pressure from a person or group.
2
Q
What are the 3 ways Kellman (1958) suggested in which people conform to the opinions of a majority?
A
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation
3
Q
What is compliance?
A
A shallow type of conformity where you publicly agree with/change behaviour to the majority but privately disagree with/don’t change behaviour to them. This is because you don’t agree with what they’re doing, so you just perform the behaviour publicly, but inside you know you don’t agree or want to show that behaviour. The change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring you, and is temporary as it doesn’t change your permanent opinion.
4
Q
What is identification?
A
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as a group because we value it and want to be part of it. This involves public agreement/change in behaviour and may or may not result in private agreement/change in behaviour (as we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority believes). It’s generally temporary and isn’t maintained when the individual leaves the group.
5
Q
What is internalisation?
A
The deepest type of conformity where there’s public and private agreement/change in behaviour with the majority because you agree with what they’re saying/trust them. It usually results in permanent change in your opinions about how you should behave and these become part of your belief system. You will now act in this way regardless of whether the group is present or not.
6
Q
What were Deutsch and Gerard’s views on the explanations of conformity (1955)?
A
Developed a 2-process theory, arguing that there are 2 main reasons why people conform:
The need to be right (ISI)
The need to be liked (NSI)
7
Q
What is Normative Social Influence (NSI)?
A
The need to be liked, involving norms. People conform as they have a need to be liked by others and don’t want to stand out. They fear rejection, so go along with the group so that the group will accept them as part of it.
8
Q
What does Normative Social Influence (NSI) lead to?
A
Compliance because they publicly agree with the majority but privately disagree with them as they don’t agree with what the majority are doing, but don’t want the majority to reject them. They just go along with them to be liked and accepted.
9
Q
When is Normative Social Influence (NSI) more likely to occur?
A
When you’re with strangers as you want to make a good impression.
When you’re with people you know as you care about what they think.
When you’re in stressful situations to minimise the stress.
10
Q
What is Informational Social Influence (ISI)?
A
The need to be right.
This is about who has the better information - you or the rest of the group.
People conform because they aren’t sure how to behave, so use the majority as a source of information.
People want to be correct and behave in the right way, but don’t know how to behave or what is correct.
11
Q
What does Informational Social Influence (ISI) lead to?
A
Internalisation because they publicly and privately agree with the majority. This is because they actually believe that the group does have more knowledge than them, so believe that what the group are doing must be right.
12
Q
When is Informational Social Influence (ISI) more likely to occur?
A
When the situation is ambiguous.
In novel situations.
Because in these situations we are less likely to know how to behave, so look to someone/a group who we think will know what the correct way to behave is.
13
Q
(+) Asch (1956) research support for NSI evaluation.
A
Found that many participant went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did. When Asch asked his participants why, some participants said that they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.
It shows how some people conform to fit in with the group and not to stand out from others.
It’s a strength as it provides evidence that NSI exists in real life and so increases the ecological validity of the NSI explanation.
14
Q
(+) Lucas et al (2006) research support for ISI evaluation.
A
Asked students to give answers to maths questions which were easy or difficult. Participants were given answers from 3 other students (who weren’t real). They found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than easier ones - this was true for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor.
Therefore, this shows that people conform in situations where they are unsure of the answer, which is exactly the outcome predicted by the ISI explanation.
This is a strength because it shows how some people conform due to lacking knowledge and understanding of a situation and thus provides evidence that ISI exists in real life (this increases the ecological validity of the explanation, meaning we can be more confident that we can generalise ISI to real life).
15
Q
(-) Difficult to separate NSI and ISI in real life evaluation, include Asch (1956) to support.
A
The idea of the 2-process theory is that behaviours are either due to ISI or NSI, but it could be that both processes are involved.
Asch (1951) found that both processes were involved in conformity. He found that conformity reduced when there was 1 rebellious participant who gave the correct answer. This rebellious participant may reduce the power of NSI as they provide social support for others (less group pressure to conform) OR may reduce the power of ISI as there’s alternative information (which may be correct).
Therefore we can’t be sure if it is NSI, ISI or both.
This is a weakness because in real life, it’s likely that the 2 processes work together, which makes the individual concepts of NSI and ISI over-simplistic.
16
Q
(-) Individual differences oppose NSI and ISI evaluation, use McGhee and Teevan (1967) to support.
A
NSI (and potentially ISI) doesn’t affect everyone in the same way.
Eg. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students high in need of affiliation (care more about being liked, called nAffiliators) were more likely to conform than students who are less concerned with being liked. nAffiliators who have a greater need for affiliation are more likely to conform.
Therefore, this shows that not all individuals will act in the same way and some people in society are more likely to conform than others. This can explain why some people go against society and don’t conform to the expected standards.
This is a weakness as it suggests that NSI cannot be generalised to everyone and makes it much less useful as it cannot be used as an explanation for conformity in everyone.
17
Q
(+) Lab experiments are used to conduct research supporting the 2-process theory evaluation.
A
Lab experiments are conducted in a controlled environment.
We can be more confident that the IV is affecting the DV, which increases the internal validity of the study, which also increases the validity of the 2-process theory (likely to be correct). It also increases the reliability of the findings, meaning the 2-process theory can be tested over and over, ensuring the results are consistent, suggesting the 2-process theory is also reliable.
18
Q
What was Asch’s aim (1956)?
A
To investigate the effect that a majority would have if the test was obvious and unambiguous.
19
Q
What was Asch’s method (1956)?
A
123 male American undergraduate students were his participants.
Each took it in turns to join a group of confederates to take part in the task.
The real participant didn’t know the rest of the people taking part we’re all confederates - thought they were real participants like themself.
Between 7 and 9 people in a group (so number of confederates was between 6 and 8).
Two sets of cards - one card was a standard line, other had 3 ‘comparison lines’.
One of the lines on the comparison card was the same size as the standard line, and participants just had to say which comparison line was the same as the standard line.
Each participant was shown 18 series of cards (18 trials), the confederates gave the correct answer 6 times and the incorrect answer 12 times (12 critical trials).
The participant was placed either last or second to last.
20
Q
What were Asch’s results (1956)?
A
On the critical trials:
36.8% of answers given by participants were incorrect (conformed to majority).
25% of participants never conformed.
75% of participants conformed at least once.
5% conformed on every critical trial.
In post-experimental interviews, some participants said they felt self-conscious when giving the correct answer, and were afraid of disapproval.
21
Q
What was Asch’s conclusion (1956)?
A
Participants will conform to a majority even when the correct answer is clear and unambiguous.
It supports NSI as many participants conformed with the majority by giving the same incorrect response because they feared being rejected by the group - wanted to be liked and accepted by the group.
22
Q
What did Asch (1956) do for his group size variation?
A
M - repeated the study with different sized majority groups, ranging from 1-15 confederates.
R - Curvilinear relationship - with 1 confederate, participants conformed on 3% of critical trials; with 2 confederates, participants conformed on 12.8% of critical trials; with 3 confederates, participants conformed on 31.8% of critical trials (similar to percentage in original study); and further increases in the size of majority had little effect on conformity (3-7 confederates between 32% and 37%, from 7 onwards, conformity levels slightly declined).
C - size of the majority is important in conformity, but only up to a certain point (~3 confederates), after which it doesn’t have any additional impact. This is because as the number of confederates increases from 1 to 3, this increases both fear of rejection and the pressure of being liked (increases effect of NSI).
23
Q
What did Asch (1956) do for his unanimity variation?
A
M - Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others - they answered differently (sometimes correctly, sometimes a different incorrect answer) on all trials before the participant.
R - average conformity dropped to 5.5%.
C - the influence of the majority depends on the group being unanimous. The presence of another non-conformist allowed the participant to act more independently. There was less pressure to conform as the participant had an ally who didn’t conform (decreases effects of NSI).
24
Q
What did Asch (1956) do for his task difficulty variation?
A
M - Asch made the line judgement task more difficult by making the standard line more similar in length to the other lines.
R - conformity increased, though he didn’t report the percentage.
C - the influence of the majority depends on the difficulty of the task. As the situation became more ambiguous, participants were more likely to look to other people for guidance and assume they’re right. This suggests the effect of ISI is greater when the task becomes harder.
25
(+) Research support (Lucas et al, 2006) evaluation for Asch’s (1956) task difficulty.
Asch’s findings have been supported by other studies - for example, Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to maths questions that were easy or difficult. Participants were given answers from 3 other students (who weren’t real). They found that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult than easier ones - this was true for students who rated their maths ability as poor).
This supports Asch’s findings that task difficulty affects conformity (as difficulty increases, conformity increases).
This suggests that task difficulty is a reliable variable and therefore is more likely to be a valid explanation.
26
(-) Lacks temporal validity evaluation for Asch (1956), use Perrin and Spencer (1980).
Asch’s findings may be unique as the research took place in a particular period of USA history when conformity was high. In 1950s America, there was a strong sense of anti-communism, where people were scared to go against the majority for fear of being called a communist.
Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s original study, but with engineering students in the UK. Only one student conformed in a total of 396 trials. It may be that engineering students felt more confident about measuring lines than the original sample, so therefore conformed less.
Therefore, Asch’s study may lack temporal validity as people now may not conform as much as they did in the 1950s as we are in a current cultural climate where we are celebrated for being an individual, not a follower. This also means that Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack temporal validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way today.
27
(-) Artificial situation and task evaluation for Asch (1956).
Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have gone along with the demands of the situation (demand characteristics) as this is what they thought they were meant to do. The line task was trivial and therefore there was really no reason not to conform (lacks mundane realism). Also the confederates weren’t trained actors, so it could be that the participants may have realised what was happening and just pretended to conform as that is what they thought the researcher wanted them to do. Furthermore, although participants were members of a ‘group’, this was not a natural group we would be part of in real life.
Therefore, the results of the study may not be accurate, and therefore lacks internal validity as Asch may not have been measuring what he intended - instead of measuring the level of conformity, he was measuring the amount of demand characteristics shown instead. This also means Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack validity, so may not affect conformity as Asch suggested.
28
(-) Ethical issues evaluation for Asch (1956).
Participants were deceived as they didn’t know that the other ‘participants’ were actually confederates. Asch also told they that they were taking part in a vision test, instead of a test of conformity. As Asch deceived them, he couldn’t gain informed consent. This could have put the participants under stress during the experiment and also could have caused embarrassment to them once they discovered the true nature of it afterward, which could lead to psychological harm.
Therefore, the experiment can be said to have ethical limitations and could be considered unacceptable. However, without deceiving the participants, there’s no way that studies like this can take place. Also, it’s unlikely that this study would have caused long-term damage to a person’s mental health.
29
(-) Lacks ecological validity evaluation for Asch (1956), use Williams and Sogon (1984).
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. Williams and Sogon (1984) found conformity was actually higher when the majority of the group were friends than when with strangers.
Some people may not be worried about fitting in and facing rejection if they are with strangers who they’ll never see again. With friends, there’s potentially a greater effect of NSI as there’s greater fear of rejection and an increased need to fit in and be liked.
Therefore we can’t be sure we’d see the same high rates of conformity in all situations so we can’t generalise Asch’s findings to all situations. Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack ecological validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way in all situations.
30
(-) Low population validity evaluation for Asch (1956).
Asch carried out his research on male undergraduate students who may not be representative of everyone eg. women, people of different ages/from other countries/different educational backgrounds.
Therefore Asch’s findings about conformity may not be able to be generalised to other groups not represented in his study. This also means Asch’s findings on how variables affect conformity may also lack population validity, so may not affect conformity in the same way for all people.
31
What are social roles?
Hare (2003) ‘a social role is a pattern of behaviour that is expected of a person in each setting or group’. Individuals learn how to behave by looking at the social roles other people have and then conforming to them. Conformity to social roles involves identification.
32
What was Zimbardo’s aim (1973)?
To investigate whether prison guards behave brutally because of their aggressive personalities (dispositional) or whether it is the situation that influences their behaviour (situational).
33
What was Zimbardo’s method (1973)?
Set up a mock prison at Stanford University and advertised for students willing to volunteer.
75 people responded and 24 were chosen who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological testing.
Students were randomly assigned roles of a prison guards or prisoners.
Zimbardo himself was the prison superintendent.
Prisoners were arrested at their homes and delivered to the ‘prison’ (they didn’t know this would happen).
The prison was the basement of the psychology department, but the experience was made as realistic as possible by using real police officers to make the arrests.
Prisoners were blindfolded, finger-printed, strip-searched, de-loused and issued a uniform and number.
There were 16 rules, enforced by guards, that prisoners had to follow.
Prisoners’ names were never used, only their numbers, and had to wear numbered smocks and nylon stockings on their heads to resemble a shaved head.
Guards had their own uniform, wooden club, handcuff, keys, and mirror shades (couldn’t see someone’s eyes). They were told they had complete power over prisoners, even deciding when they could go to the toilet.
34
What were Zimbardo’s results (1973)?
Both guards and prisoners settled quickly into their social roles and in particular, guards took up their roles with enthusiam, some even taking extra shifts without pay ($15 per day).
Guards conducted frequent headcounts - highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules to punish even small offences.
Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment by the guards. They ripped their uniforms, shouted, swore at the guards.
‘Divide-and-rule’ tactics were employed by guards where they played prisoners off against each other.
Guards crushed the rebellion by dehumanising the prisoners through taunting them, waking them up in the night, giving them meaningless boring tasks to do, even forcing them to clean the toilets with their bare hands.
1 prisoner went on a hunger strike and the guards attempted to force-feed, then they put him in the ‘hole’ (a small dark closet).
After the rebellion, prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed.
1 prisoner was released on the first day as he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance. 4 more were released on the 4th day.
Guards identified more with their role and became more brutal and aggressive with some appearing to enjoy the power they had over prisoners.
Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health, and the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days. The prisoners were happy but the guards were upset by Zimbardo’s decision.
35
What was Zimbardo’s conclusion (1973)?
It revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour. Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the prison - these roles were taken on very easily by all the participants. Their behaviour was not seen outside of the prison simulation, and most of the participants afterwards said they were shocked by their own behaviour. Both guards and prisoners demonstrated social roles gained from media sources and learned models of social power.
This suggests that people behave in a certain way (by conforming to social roles in this example) due to the situation/environment (rather than due to the individual - dispositional).
36
(-) Ethical issues evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
Zimbardo couldn’t gain full informed consent (and so deceived them) as they didn’t tell the participants that they’d be arrested at home.
Many participants were experiencing emotional distress and therefore suffering from psychological harm, the prisoners were exposed to what most people would regard as an unacceptable amount of humiliation and distress.
When one prisoner asked to be released, Zimbardo spoke to him as a superintendent rather than a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants and he wasn’t allowed to leave the prison/study, violating his right to withdraw.
However Zimbardo did carry out debriefing sessions for several years afterwards and concluded that there were no lasting negative effects. His study was ethical at the time as it followed guidelines and the Stanford University Ethics Committee approved it.
37
(+) High control of extraneous variables evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
The experiment was carried out in an artificial setting, so was highly controlled eg. in the selection of participants, emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard or prisoner.
This is one way researchers tried to limit individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviours must have been due to the pressures of the situation (so they’re likely conforming to social roles).
This is a strength as it gives the study high internal validity, so we can be confident that the conclusion about the influence of roles/situational factors on conformity is more likely to be correct.
38
(-) Lacks realism evaluation for Zimbardo (1973), use Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975).
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) found that one of the guards said he had based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’. This would also explain why prisoners rioted, because they thought that was what real prisoners did.
Demand characteristics could explain the findings of the study. Most of the guards later claimed they were simply acting. Because the guards and prisoners were playing a role, their behaviour may not be influenced by the same factors which affect behaviour in real life. This means the study’s findings cannot be reasonably generalised to real life, such as prison settings eg. the study has low ecological validity so we cannot be sure that people would conform to social roles in real life.
As Zimbardo thought he was measuring how people would adapt to social roles, the study’s internal validity could be reduced, as he could have been measuring how well people were acting according to the TV shows they’ve seen involving prisoners. Therefore his study may tell us nothing about conformity to social roles.
39
(-) Ignores dispositional factors evaluation for Zimbardo (1973), use Fromm (1973).
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the toll of personality factors (dispositional influences). For example, only a minority of the guards (1/3) behaved in a brutal manner. Another third was keen on applying 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 Zimbardo’s conclusion that guards were conforming to social roles was exaggerated as not all of them did so.
Consequently, this suggests not everyone will conform to social roles, suggesting that situational factors don’t influence everyone in the same way. Therefore we can’t generalise Zimbardo’s conclusion to everyone and cannot say that all people will conform to social roles due to the situation they’re in (for example, dispositional factors probably explained why some guards helped and supported the prisoners - simply, they were nice people).
40
(-) Low population validity evaluation for Zimbardo (1973).
Zimbardo carried out his research on American male students who may not be representative of everyone eg. women, people of different ages/other countries/different abilities.
Therefore Zimbardo’s findings about conformity to social roles may not be able to be generalised to other groups not represented in his study eg. situational factors may not affect conformity to social roles in the same way for all people.
41
What is obedience?
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.
42
What was Milgram’s aim (1963)?
To investigate whether ordinary people would follow the orders of an unjust authority figure.
He wanted to test the hypothesis that the Germans who followed Nazi orders were different - he hypothesised that anyone would have followed the orders put in the same position.
43
What was Milgram’s method for his baseline study (1963)?
40 male participants aged 20-50 from the New Haven area in Connecticut who volunteered via a newspaper advert.
Paid $4.50 to take part in a study on ‘punishment and learning’ at Yale University.
3 roles: experimenter (authority figure played by a confederate), teacher (person who’d test the learner and administer punishments, played by the real participant), learner (person who’d receive punishments if they got questions wrong, played by a confederate).
Participant believed they were randomly assigned the role of the teacher through drawing lots (but they were fixed).
Participants had to ask the learner questions, and if they answered incorrectly, the teacher had to give them an electric shock that would increase in voltage (starting at 15V up to 450V in 15V intervals).
To try to ensure that the participants believed they were giving real electric shocks, they were given a real test shock beforehand.
Learner sat in another room and gave mainly incorrect answers. The learner remained silent until the 300V shock. Then they didn’t respond to the next question but banged on the wall instead.
This happened again at 315V and after they didn’t say or do anything.
If participants refused to continue, the experimenter gave verbal prods to get them to continue, such as ‘it’s essential you continue’ and ‘you must go on’.
Milgram asked colleagues, psychiatrists and college student what would happen beforehand, and they predicted that few would obey the experimenter at all and very few would go beyond 150V.
44
What were Milgram’s results for his baseline study (1963)?
65% went to the full 450V shock (labelled XXX).
100% went to the 300V shock.
Only 14/40 participants showed nervous laughing and 3 had seizures.
Only 5/40 (12.5%) stopped at the 300V shock when the learner first objected.
Participants showed evidence of shaking, sweating and stuttering.
Many participants argued with the experimenter, but continued to obey.
45
What was Milgram’s conclusion for his baseline study (1963)?
The ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis is clearly false as Milgram’s 40 participants were ordinary Americans. Their high levels of obedience showed that people obey those regarded as authority figures. The results suggest that obeying those in authority is normal behaviour in a hierarchically organised society. We will obey orders that distress and go against our moral code.
We will obey a perceived legitimate authority figure especially if we move into an agentic state.
Obedience was down to the situation the participants were placed in.
46
What happened during Milgram’s first proximity variation (1963)?
Teacher and learner in the same room.
Obedience rage dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%. The teacher was more aware of the consequences of their actions, so felt more responsible for their actions and were less likely to obey and more likely to be in an autonomous state.
47
What happened during Milgram’s second proximity variation (1963)?
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’.
Obedience dropped to 30%. Teacher felt even more responsible for their actions as they had to physically force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate. Therefore they were less likely to obey and more likely to be in an autonomous state.
48
What happened during Milgram’s third proximity variation (1963)?
The experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher via telephone.
Reduced obedience to 20.5% (participants often pretended to give shocks/gave weaker shocks than they were told to). Teacher felt less pressure to obey as experimenter couldn’t see what they were doing. Therefore they’re less likely to obey as there was less influence of the legitimate authority, so more likely to be in an autonomous state.
49
What happened during Milgram’s location variation (1963)?
Study held in a run-down office block instead of Yale University.
Obedience levels fell from 65% to 47.5%. Participants perceived the experimenter to have less legitimacy of authority, so were less likely to obey.
50
What happened during Milgram’s uniform variation (1963)?
In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a white lab coat as a symbol of authority. In the variation, the experimenter was called away via a telephone call at the start of the procedure, and the role of the experimenter was taken on by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (played by a confederate), who wore everyday clothes instead of a lab coat.
Obedience dropped to 20%. Due to the everyday clothes, participants perceived the experimenter to have less legitimacy of authority, so were less likely to obey.
51
(+) Hofling et al (1966) research support evaluation for Milgram (1963).
Hofling studied nurses who worked in hospitals. Hofling rang the nurses pretending to be a doctor and asked them to give double the dose of a made-up drug ‘astrofen’. If they did this, they would be breaking several rules. He found that 21/22 nurses obeyed and gave the drug.
Even though the nurses knew they were breaking hospital rules, they did what the doctor asked anyway due to him being a legitimate authority.
Hofling’s research was carried out in a natural setting, which shows that people will obey a legitimate authority. This supports Milgram’s findings and therefore Milgram’s research is reliable and likely to have high ecological validity and can be generalised to real life.
52
(+) Sheridan and King (1972) research support evaluation for Milgram (1963).
Carried out a similar procedure but used a puppy as the learner. The puppy carried out a learning exercise and each time it made a mistake, it would receive an electric shock. Participants, acting as the teacher, were led to believe that the shocks were becoming increasingly severe, as in Milgram’s original procedure. In fact, the puppy was getting a small shock each time, just enough to make it jump and show obvious signs of receiving a shock. Eventually, the puppy receives an anaesthetic to put it to sleep, and the participants think they’ve killed it. 54% of male and all of the female participants continued to give it electric shocks up to the maximum.
This shows that people will follow orders from a legitimate authority even though they can see the pain they’re causing. This supports Milgram’s conclusions that anyone could cause potential harm if asked by a legitimate authority, further increasing the reliability of Milgram’s research.
53
(-) Demand characteristics evaluation for Milgram (1963), use Orne and Holland.
Orne and Holland suggest that as the experimenter was cold and distant and showed no compassion for the screams of the learner, the participants must have worked out that the situation was fake and this is why they administered the shocks - they knew they weren’t actually harming the participant. This is supported by the fact that electric shocks aren’t a believable punishment for getting questions wrong.
This is a problem as we can’t be sure that the IV (legitimate authority) has affected the DV (obedience) as it’s possible that participants guessed the aim and that demand characteristics actually caused ‘obedience’. Consequently, Milgram’s research may lack internal validity as he may not be measuring obedience. However, Sheridan and King (1972) used real shocks and participants still administered them, suggesting they were obeying and not ‘playing along’.
54
(-) Ethical issues evaluation for Milgram (1963).
Deception - participants thought the shocks were real, they’d fairly drawn the role of teacher, and other participants were real participants. It’s an issue as it’s unethical to lie to participants in psychological research, as it may cause them to suffer from embarrassment and stress. Milgram said it was the only way to get participants to behave realistically, otherwise the results wouldn’t be generalised to real life.
As Milgram deceived his participants, he couldn’t gain their full informed consent.
Participants are technically given the right to withdraw at the beginning, but it was made difficult for them to do so, as they were given verbal probs to continue, so weren’t reminded of their right to withdraw during the study. If they asked to leave, they were told to continue, which could harm them psychologically. However, 35% did refuse to carry on and Milgram claimed the door was always unlocked and they could have just got up and left.
Protection from harm - Baumrind criticises Milgram, saying participants were under a great deal of stress and harm as they thought they were hurting another person (14/40 showed nervous laughter, 3/40 had seizures, generally showed sweating, shaking and stuttering). Milgram did carry out a full debrief after, offered counselling to all and after a year, carried out psychiatric assessments and found no lasting damage.
Although Milgram did attempt to deal with these ethical issues, it could be argued that the ends didn’t justify the means. Therefore, Milgram’s research is likely to be viewed as unethical and would almost certainly not be allowed to be conducted today.
55
(-) Low population validity evaluation for Milgram (1963).
40 male participants aged 20-50 from New Haven, Connecticut in the USA.
This isn’t representative of women, people of other ages/other geographical areas.
Therefore Milgram’s findings about obedience may not be able to be generalised to other groups not represented in his study. This also means that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience to a legitimate authority may also lack population validity, so it may not affect obedience in the same way in all people.
56
What is the agentic state?
Milgram’s initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. Eichmann had overseen the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders. This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility. Instead they believe they’re acting for someone else.
Therefore, people follow orders on the understanding that they’re acting on behalf of someone else and therefore able to pass on responsibility to them, even though they may still experience moral strain.
57
What is legitimacy of authority?
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way.
Legitimate authority figures have the power to punish others. We are willing to give up some of our independence and hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults.
58
What is gradual commitment?
Initially we’re told to do something quite small, even though it may be upsetting/harmful/hurtful and goes against your moral code.
Once you’ve followed such orders, you may then find it increasingly difficult to refuse to carry out more serious and escalating requests.
59
How can Milgram’s research be used to support the agentic state explanation?
Proximity - as the teacher got ‘closer’ to the learner and became more aware of the consequences of their actions, they were less likely to be in an agentic state, so less likely to obey as they feel more responsible for their actions.
60
How can Milgram’s variations be used to support the legitimacy of authority explanation?
Location - the less prestigious the location of the experiment, the less perceived legitimacy of authority the experimenter had and the less likely the participants to obey.
Uniform - the less professional the authority figure was dressed, the less perceived legitimacy of authority the experimenter had and the less likely the participants to obey.
61
How can Milgram’s research be used to support the gradual commitment explanation?
Baseline study - participants had to give small shocks initially, which didn’t appear harmful to the learners (they were even given a sample shock to support this). Once they’d been given these shocks, it was much more difficult for them to disobey the escalating requests to shock the learner as the shocks increased.
62
(+) Blass and Schmidt (2001) research support evaluation for explanations of obedience.
Blass and Schmidt (2001) showed students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them, ‘Who is to blame for the harm to Mr Wallace (the learner)?’ and the students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant.
The students recognised that the experimenter had high status and role within science.
It shows that obedience was not because of participants’ personality but was due to the situation they were placed in, which gave the experimenter more perceived legitimacy of authority. Therefore, the experimenter was the reason that the participants carried out electric shocks, which increases the validity of the legitimacy of authority explanation as there’s research to support it.
63
(+) Hofling et al (1966) research support evaluation for explanations of obedience.
Hofling rang nurses pretending to be a doctor and asked them to give double the dose of a made-up drug. If they did, they’d be breaking several rules. They found that 21/22 nurses obeyed and gave the drug.
Even though the nurses knew that they were breaking hospital rules, they obeyed the doctor anyway due to him being a perceived legitimate authority figure.
As the doctor is a professional and is perceived as a legitimate authority figure, the nurses are more likely to obey the doctor as they experience the agentic shift, when they believe they’re acting on behalf of the doctor and therefore are able to pass on responsibility for giving drugs to them. This is a strength because it provides evidence for both legitimacy of authority and the agentic state, which increases the validity of the explanations as there’s research to support them.
64
(+) Can explain cross-cultural variations (high explanatory power) evaluation for explanation of obedience.
Obedience differs in different cultures.
Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia - 16% of participants went to the maximum voltage. Mantell (1971) found in German participants that 85% went to the maximum voltage.
Suggests that perceived legitimacy of authority varies between cultures. This reflects the different ways societies are structured and the different attitudes towards authority.
Therefore, legitimacy of authority can explain why we see these cross-cultural differences. However, this means we can’t generalise the effect of a legitimate authority between cultures, so cannot be sure it’ll have the same effect everywhere.
65
(+) Bickman (1974) research support evaluation for situational factors of obedience.
Investigated whether in everyday life, a person was more likely to obey an order of the order came from someone in uniform.
A researcher on the street was dressed either in plain clothes, a milkman’s uniform or a guard’s uniform and told passers-by to pick up a bag, give someone a dime or move to a different area of the bus stop.
They found the passers-by were more likely to obey the guard than someone dressed in plain clothes or a milkman. In a follow-up study, where the researcher walked away after giving the order, the person was still more likely to continue to fulfil the order when the guard had given it.
This suggests that people respond to the type of uniform, not just uniforms in general. A guard’s uniform suggests legitimate authority to punish the passer-by for failing to complete orders.
This study supports Milgram’s findings about the power of uniform, suggesting this is an important situational factor in obedience.
This suggests that an appropriate uniform gives an individual perceived legitimacy of authority and the power to punish which increases the validity of the explanation as there’s research to support it.
66
(-) Legitimacy of authority cannot explain all situations of disobedience evaluation for explanations of obedience, use Milgram (1963) to support.
Legitimacy of authority cannot explain when individuals do not obey those who they perceive to have a legitimate authority and the power to punish their disobedience.
Eg. Milgram - some participants didn’t fully obey and continue to the maximum voltage despite recognising the authority of the experimenter.
This is a problem as it suggests we can’t generalise the legitimacy of authority explanation to everyone as not everyone will obey a perceived legitimate authority. Therefore it seems likely that differences in the personality (disposition) of individuals may have a greater effect on obedience than the perceived legitimacy of authority.
67
(-) The agentic shift cannot explain all situations of obedience evaluation for explanations of obedience, use Milgram (1963) and Hoffling (1966) to support.
The agentic shift can’t explain all research findings.
Eg. Milgram - not all participants fully obeyed (35%). Hofling - nurses didn’t show signs of moral strain like in Milgram.
This is a problem as we can’t generalise the agentic state as an explanation for obedience to everyone, so the agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations, not all.
We can’t be sure the nurses in Hofling’s study were in the agentic state so cannot reliably use Hofling’s evidence to support the agentic state explanation, so can be less confidence that the explanation is valid.
68
(-) The agentic shift cannot explain all acts of atrocity evaluation for explanations of obedience, use Mandel (1998) to support.
Mandel (1998) reported one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101 who shot civilians in a small town in Poland. This was despite the fact that they didn’t have direct orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned other tasks if they wanted).
This goes against the agentic shift as the soldiers took their own decisions to shoot the civilians and did so under their own free will (autonomous state). This suggests that acts of atrocity are not always carried out in the agentic state, so cannot reliably use this explanation to support the obedience alibi used WW2.
69
What is the autonomous state?
The opposite of agentic state - free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
70
What is the agentic shift?
The shift from autonomous to agentic state.
Milgram (1974) suggested that this shift occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. The other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
71
What was Adorno’s aim (1950)?
To investigate the causes of the obedient personality.
He wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the holocaust. His research led him to draw very different conclusions than Milgram. He believed that a high level of obedience was due to the personality of the individual, not the situation they were placed in.
72
What was Adorno’s method (1950)?
Studied more than 2000 middle-class white American and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
They developed several scales to investigate these attitudes, including the personality for fascism scale (F-scale) which is still used to measure authoritarian personality.
73
What were Adorno’s results (1950)?
People who scored highly on the F-scale and so had an authoritarian personality:
- identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak.
- were very conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect, deference and servility to those of a higher status (more likely to obey those of a higher status).
- had a cognitive style where there was no fuzziness between categories of people with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups.
- had high levels of prejudice (there was a strong positive correlation between level of authoritarianism and prejudice).
74
What was Adorno’s conclusion (1950)?
People with an authoritarian personality:
- have a tendency to be especially obedient or authority.
- have an extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it.
- show contempt for people they perceive as having inferior social status.
- have highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender.
- view society as ‘going to the dogs’ and therefore believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country, religion and family.
- are inflexible in their outlook, everything is either right or wrong and they’re very uncomfortable with uncertainty.
75
How did Adorno (1950) argue that parenting can lead to the authoritarian personality?
He argued an authoritarian personality was a result of harsh parenting involving:
- strict discipline.
- expectation of absolutist loyalty.
- impossibly high standards.
- severe criticism of failure.
Harsh parenting produced a fear and hatred of parents. Fear led to the need to obey authority figures later in life.
Hatred was displaced onto perceived ‘weaker’ targets such as ethnic minorities (scapegoating), which can explain the contempt they have for people they perceive as having inferior social status.
76
(+/-) Elms and Milgram (1966) research for Adorno’s 1950 authoritarian personality.
Elms and Milgram (1966) wanted to see if the obedient participants in Milgram’s research were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits compared to disobedient participants. Their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants, who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient participants, who refused to continue. Each participant completed several personality questionnaires, including Adorno’s F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. In addition, participants were also asked open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents and their relationship with the experimenter and learner, during Milgram’s experiment.
They found that obedient participants scored higher on the F scale than the disobedient participants. They also found that obedient participants admired the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment (opposite for disobedient participants).
They concluded that obedient participants displayed higher levels of the authoritarian personality than disobedient participants. This is a strength because it provides further evidence to suggest that the authoritarian personality is associated with higher levels of obedience.
HOWEVER, Elms and Milgram also found that obedient participants did have some characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians eg didn’t glorify their fathers. Therefore this suggests that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is more complex than Adorno suggested. As the obedient participants weren’t like authoritarians in many ways, it weakens the link between obedience and authoritarianism.
77
(-) Limited explanation in large populations evaluation for Adorno’s 1950 authoritarian personality.
The authoritarian personality struggles to explain obedient behaviour in large populations (where there will be diverse personalities).
For example, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient, racist and anti-semantic behaviour even though they must have differed in their personalities in many ways.
This suggests that an alternative explanation is much more realistic - that social identity explains obedience. Much of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the 'out-group' of Jews.
It weakens the link between obedience and authoritarianism as it suggests that there are other reasons (such as social identity) why people obey.
78
(-) 3rd variable effect Middenthorp and Meleon (1990) evaluation for Adorno’s 1950 authoritarian personality.
Middenthorp and Meleon (1990) found that less-educated people are more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics than well-educated people.
If correct, then it is possible to conclude that it isn’t authoritarian personality characteristics that lead to obedience, but levels of education.
Therefore, this limits Adorno’s theory, as we can’t be sure what is causing obedience - a 3rd variable like education or authoritarian personality.
79
(-) Correlation not causation evaluation for Adorno’s 1950 authoritarian personality.
Adorno measures a range of variables and found many significant correlations between them.
For instance, he found that authoritarianism was strongly correlated with measures of prejudice against minority groups.
However, no matter how strong a correlation between 2 variables might be, it can’t be assumed that one variable causes the other.
This is a weakness as we can’t be sure that a harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personality or that an authoritarian personality causes obedience.
80
(-) Politically biased evaluation for Adorno’s 1950 authoritarian personality, include Christie and Jahoda (1954) to support.
The F scale measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology.
Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that this is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality as in reality there also exists a left-wing authoritarianism eg Russian Bolshevism.
Extreme right and left wing ideologies have much in common.
This is a weakness as Adorno’s theory can’t account for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum and therefore can’t be generalised to explain obedience in everyone.
81
What is social support?
A situational factor as to why some people don’t conform or obey.
Research has suggested that having an ally can make resisting social influence easier.
82
What is an example of social support in conformity and why does it increase resistance?
Asch’s unanimity variation found that introducing another person who gave the correct answers decreased conformity rates to 5.5% and therefore increased resistance.
This is because it decreases the effects of NSI.
In another variation, Asch instructed a confederate to give the correct answer on the first few trials and then tell the experimenter he had an appointment and had to leave. Conformity dropped to 28.5%. This suggests that it may be challenging the consistency which is important factor in social support.
These variations show that people are more likely to resist conformity when they have social support.
83
What is an example of social support in obedience and why does it increase resistance?
In one variation of Milgram’s study, 2 other confederates were in the same room as the participant and disobeyed the experimenter. Obedience dropped to 10% (from 65%).
Social support allows the person to remain in the autonomous state and think/act in their own way.
This shows people are more likely to resist obeying when they have social support.
84
What is Rotter’s Locus of Control (1966)?
Rotter (1966) developed the concept of ‘Locus of Control’, which is the extent to which people think they are responsible for their own successes and failure (dispositional). He distinguished between 2 types of people:
High external locus of control (believe that what happens to them is out of their control and is due to luck, chance, fate, or uncontrollable circumstances).
High internal locus of control (believe they’re responsible for what happens to them).
It is a continuum with high internal and high external at opposite ends.
85
What are the characteristics of people with a high internal LOC and why are they more likely to resist social influence?
People with a high internal locus of control take more social responsibility, have high levels of confidence, higher self-esteem, are more achievement oriented and tend to be of higher intelligence.
They are less likely to conform (more likely to resist conformity) as they base decisions on their own beliefs so are less likely to doubt themselves (due to higher intelligence and confidence) so are less likely to experience ISI. They also feel better about themselves (due to higher self-esteem and confidence) so have less of a need to fit in so are less likely to experience NSI.
They are less likely to obey (more likely to resist obedience) because they feel more autonomous and thus in control of, and therefore responsible for, their own actions (more likely to be in an autonomous state).
86
(+) Allen and Levine (1971) research support evaluation for social support in conformity.
Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreases when there was 1 dissenter in an Asch-type study (64% didn’t conform compared to only 3% when there was no dissenter). This occurred (but not to as great an extent) even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision (36% didn’t conform).
This supports the view that providing social support can increase resistance to conformity, thus supporting social support as an explanation for resistance in conformity.
It also suggests that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says, but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group (less NSI).
87
(-) Contradictory research (Reserve Battalion 101) evaluation for social support in obedience.
An order for a mass murder was given to Reserve Battalion 101 but they were allowed to be assigned to other duties if they wished. Several accepted but the majority chose not to participate.
The presence of allies (as social support) should have encouraged more people to resist (and therefore not participate).
This suggests that social support is not an important factor in resisting obedience in real life.
88
(+) Holland (1967) research support evaluation for LOC in obedience.
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were ‘internals’ or ‘externals’.
He found that 37% of ‘internals’ didn’t continue to the highest shock level (showed some resistance) whereas only 23% of ‘externals’ didn’t continue.
The ‘internals’ showed greater resistance to authority which provides evidence for the LOC explanation and suggests that it is more likely to be a valid explanation for resisting social influence.
89
(+) Oliner and Oliner (1988) research support evaluation for LOC in obedience.
Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed Germans who sheltered Jewish people in their homes during the reign of the Nazis. They found that the majority of these people had an internal LOC (and also scored highly in questionnaires that measured levels of social responsibility).
A person with a high internal LOC would be more likely to hide Jewish people as they feel in control of their actions, so are more likely to act autonomously, according to their own moral principles and beliefs. Therefore, they’d be less likely to obey the Nazi orders to turn in Jewish people as they were in an autonomous state.
This suggests that having a high internal LOC is an important factor in resisting obedience in real life and so supports the LOC explanation for resisting social influence.
90
(-) Twenge et al (2004) contradictory research evaluation for LOC in obedience.
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from obedience studies carried out in the USA between 1960 and 2002. They found that over this time, people have become more resistant to obedience, but also more ‘external’. If resistance was linked to a high internal LOC, we’d expect people to have become more ‘internal’. This challenges the link between a high internal LOC and resisting social influence and suggests the LOC explanation for resisting social influence is less likely to be correct (less valid).
91
(-) Rotter (1982) limited role of LOC evaluation for LOC in obedience.
Rotter (1982) suggested that LOC only really affects behaviour in new situations. If an individual has conformed or obeyed in the same situation previously, then they are much more likely to conform or obey again when in the same situation regardless of whether they are an ‘internal’ or ‘external’.
This suggests that at best, high internal LOC is an incomplete explanation for resisting social influence as it can’t explain resistance in most situations.
92
What is minority influence?
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.
Leads to internalisation in which people’s private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.
93
What is consistency and how does it work in minority influence?
Make sure that everyone in the minority has the same views and messages.
Synchronic consistency - consistency between people in the minority (all say same consistent message).
Diachronic consistency - consistency over time (saying the same message consistently over time).
Increases interest and gets people to start to rethink their own views.
94
What is flexibility and how does it work in minority influence?
Nemeth (1986) argued that extreme consistency can be seen as rigid, unbending, inflexible and dogmatic. This is off-putting to the majority and unlikely to result in change.
Minority needs to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter-arguments.
Strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.
95
What is commitment and how does it work in minority influence?
Engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views.
These extreme activities must place some risk to the minority as this demonstrates commitment to the cause.
People then pay even more attention. This is called the augmentation principle.
96
(+) Moscovici et al (1969) research support evaluation for consistency in minority influence.
32 groups of 6 female ‘participants’ were told they’re taking part in a study on perception. Each group was presented with 36 blue slides differing in intensity of shade and were asked to say what colour the slides were. However 2 of the ‘participants’ were actually confederates and they answered in 1 of 2 ways: consistent (2 confederates always say the slides are green - 36/36) or inconsistent (2 confederates say slides are green 2/3 of the time - 24/36). There was also a control group with no confederates.
They found that in the consistent group (green every time) 8.4% of the majority agreed/conformed. In the inconsistent group (green 2/3s) only 1.25% of the majority agreed/conformed. 32% conformed at least once.
They concluded that consistency is vital for minority influence to occur. If a minority consistently gives the same answer, the majority is more likely to agree/conform.
97
(+) Wood et al (1994) research support evaluation for consistency in minority influence.
Carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies to Moscovici’s and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential. This suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
Therefore this shows further support for the need for consistency when trying to change a majority’s view/actions by a minority group and suggests that consistency is a reliable factor involved in minority influence.
98
(+/-) Nemeth et al (1994) research to contradict consistency but to support flexibility in minority influence evaluation.
Repeated Moscovici’s experiment but instructed participants to answer with all the colours they saw in the slide, rather than a single colour eg green-blue. They ran 3 variations where the 2 confederates: said all the slides were green (consistent) or said the slides were green or green-blue at random (inconsistent) or said the brighter slides were green-blue and duller slides were green (or vice versa, so consistent but flexible). If consistency was the only factor that influenced the majority, we would expect the consistent condition to have the greatest influence on the minority. However this wasn’t the case.
They found that the consistent and inconsistent conditions had no effect on the participants’ responses. In the consistent but flexible condition, there was a significant effect on the participants’ responses - 21% conformity.
They concluded that rigid consistency wasn’t effective as it seemed unrealistic when more suitable responses were allowed. Minorities are more likely to be influential if they are consistent but not to the point of being dogmatic. Therefore, minority influence is more powerful when the minority is consistent yet flexible.
99
(+) Martin et al (2003) research support evaluation for deeper processing in minority influence.
Have a message supporting a particular viewpoint and then measured participants’ level of agreement. Group 1 then heard a minority group agree with the viewpoint. Group 2 then heard a majority agree with the viewpoint. Participants then heard a conflicting view to the original viewpoint and level of agreement was measured again.
They found that participants in group 1 (minority) were less likely to change their opinions/level of agreement than those in group 2 (majority).
They concluded that the minority message had a greater effect suggesting it had been processed more deeply. This supports the idea that minority influence works by getting people to process information at a deeper level.
HOWEVER, other studies haven’t found the same. Mackie (1987) suggested that it was majority influence (conformity), not a minority influence which led to deeper processing. When a majority believed something different, it often makes us think harder and deeper about their viewpoint as we like to believe that others think in similar ways to us and share our beliefs.
This suggests that deeper processing is not always involved in minority influence and suggests that it’s an unreliable explanation.
100
(-) Research to support minority influence comes from lab experiments and uses artificial tasks evaluation.
Identifying the colour of a slide is artificial and not an everyday task (lacks mundane realism). This is very different from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life. In real life situations such as jury decision-making, the outcomes are vastly more important, sometimes even a matter of life and death. This means the findings of minority influence studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real life.
101
What is social change?
It occurs when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. It can be caused by minority influence, conformity and obedience.
102
How does minority influence lead to social change?
Commitment, flexibility and consistency make people think about a topic and lead to deeper processing which is important in the conversion to a minority viewpoint. This leads to the snowball effect.
A minority may engage in an extreme activity to draw attention to their view. This makes the majority group members may pay even more attention to the minority group and leads to the augmentation principle.
Social cryptomnesia may also occur. This is the idea that people have a memory that change has occurred in society, but they have no memory of the events that have led to the change. This makes it easier to accept the change.
103
How does conformity lead to social change?
Asch highlighted the importance of dissent (disagreement) in one of his variations, in which one confederate gave different answers to the other confederates. This broke the power of the majority encouraging others to resist conformity. Such dissent from the minority has the potential to convert the majority and ultimately lead to social change.
Environmental and health campaigns increasingly exploit conformity processes by appealing to
normative social influence. They do this by providing information about what other people are doing.
Examples include, reducing litter by printing normative messages on litter bins ("Bin it - others do"), and preventing young people from taking up smoking (telling them that most other young people do not smoke). Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing.
104
How does obedience lead to social change?
Milgram's research demonstrates the importance of disobedient role models. In the variation where two confederate teachers refused to give shocks to the learner, the rate of obedience decreased significantly to 10%.
Zimbardo (2007) suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one. People essentially 'drift’ into a new kind of behaviour and this may lead to social change.
105
(+) Nolan et al (2008) research support for NSI (conformity).
Investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. They hung messages in the front doors of houses in San Diego, California, every week for a 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 that there were significant decreases in energy usage in the first group whose messages said that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage.
This supports the idea that conformity through NSI can lead to social change, suggesting it’s a valid explanation.
HOWEVER, other studies haven’t found the same. Foxcroft et al (2015) did a meta-analysis of 70 studies where exposure to social norms (operating through NSI) was used to try and reduce student alcohol use. They found that there was no effect on frequency of drinking and only a small reduction in quantity of drinking.
This suggests that NSI doesn’t always produce social change, and that it’s an unreliable explanation.
106
(-) Barriers to social change Bashir et al (2013) evaluation.
Bashir et al (2013) investigated why people often resist social change, even when they agree that it is necessary.
For example, they found that their 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 in negative ways describing them as ‘tree huggers’.
The researchers' advice to minorities hoping to create social change is to avoid behaving in ways that reinforce the stereotypes because this will always be off-putting to the majority they want to influence.
