Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Evaluate obedience and milligrams shock research

Answer 1

✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is that milgrams findings were replicated on a French documentary about reality TV E- in the documentary contestants for a pilot episode of Le jeu de la mort what ordered to shock other actor participants in front of a studio audience. 80% delivered a shock of 460 V to an apparently unconscious man. Qualitative behaviour observed was identical to milgrams E- Tmt Milligrams original findings about obedience are supported. ❌ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY P- one limitation is that milligrams procedure may not have been testing what it was intended to test E- reported that 75% of his participants believe the shocks were genuine. ORNE and HOLLAND argued playacting since participants believed shock were fake. PERRY confirmed this listening to tapes of participants and reporting only about half of them believe shocks were real. E- Tmt demand characteristics ✅ COUNTERPOINT P- however SHERIDAN and KING Conducted a study in which participants were ordered to give real shocks to a puppy. E- Despite the real distress of the animal 54% of male students and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. E- tmt original findings were genuine since people behaved to obediently even when shocks were real ❌ ETHICAL ISSUES LMAO CRIDPP BRAUMRIND

Answer 2

- HOFFING - unknown doctor telephone 22 nurses - alone asked to administer an overdose of a drug not on their ward list (astroten) - 95% of nurses started to administer the drug - RANK AND JACOBSON - asked by doctor to administer overdose of Valium (familiar drug) - Doctor name was known - Nurses had chance to discuss - 2 out of 18 obeyed

Answer 3

1. Baseline study Yale uni PROXIMITY: 2. T and L same room 3. Touch variation (T forces L hand onto plate) 4. Remote instruction (E gave orders from phone) LOCATION 5. Uni > run down office UNIFORM 6. Member of public (NOT GREAT SINCE PUBLIC AUTHORITY VARIABLE- USE BICKMAN INSTEAD FOR AO1)

Answer 4

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE= 65% 1. TEACHER AND LEARNER SAME ROOM - obedience rate dropped to 40% 2. TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION - teacher forced learners hand onto electroshock plate - obedience dropped to 30% 3. REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION - experimenter left room > gave instructions to shock by phone - obedience dropped to 20.5% - pps frequently pretended to give shocks EXPLANATION- decreased proximity allowed participants to psychologically dissociate themselves from the consequences of their actions

Answer 5

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE= 65% 4. RUN DOWN OFFICE BLOCK LOCATION - in run down office block not prestigious Yale uni - obedience fell to 47.5% EXPLANATION- obedience decreased because legitimacy and authority associated with Yale university was lost. However, obedience were still high as participants still identified with the scientific aims of the procedure

Answer 6

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE- 65% 5. UNIFORM VARIATION - experimenter wore grey lab coat - variation experimenter called away bcs of an inconvenient phone call - role of experimenter taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (actually a confederate) in every day clothes - obedience dropped to 20% 6. (And what you should be using) BICKMAN - Field experiment NYC - three confederates dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, and a security guards uniform - confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks like picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter - People 2x as likely to obey the assistant dressed as security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie - obedience is greatly impacted by a situational variable such as uniform EXPLANATION- uniforms encourage obedience as they are a universal symbol of authority. We are conditioned to believe there or authority is legitimate and so we accept that they titled to expect obedience

Answer 7

✅ CROSS CULTURAL VALIDITY P- one strength of milligrams research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures E- for example, MEEUS and RAAJMAKERS ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to an interviewee (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. When the person giving the orders was not present obedience decreased dramatically, proving the validity of milligrams situation replications. E- tmt Milligrams findings about obedience can be generalised to other cultures and genders ❌ COUNTERPOINT P- one weakness of milligrams replications is that they’re not very cross cultural E- for example, BOND and SMITH identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non western countries (INDIA AND JORDAN). The other countries had western ideals similar to the United States, and subsequently have similar notions about the role of authority. E- TMT it may not be appropriate to generalise milligrams findings to all people most cultures ❌ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY P- limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked E- ORNE and HOLLAND criticised milligrams baseline study and argued that it is even more likely in his variations because of extra manipulation of variables (eg experimenter replaced by public) Even milligram recognise that the situation was so unusual the participants may have guessed the truth. E- this means that milligrams findings may not be genuine as participants saw through deception and responded to demand characteristics. The study has low internal validity as a result. ❌ THE DANGER OF THE SITUATIONAL PERSPECTIVE P- whilst milligrams findings support a situational explanation of obedience, It may be considered offensive in some situations E- for example, MANDEL argues that it offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour, and is subsequently offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milligrams explanation also ignore the effective dispositional factors (personality) E- this means that the situational perspective can be used dangerously to justify horrific acts and deny the individual of responsibility which they should embrace

Answer 8

1. AGENTIC STATE 2. LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

Answer 9

- Milgram was interested in obedience after the trial of Adolf Eichmann - was in charge of Nazi death camps, defence was that he was only obeying orders - Milgram argued that obedience to destructive authority occurs when someone does not take responsibility for their actions and instead believes that they are acting on someone else’s behalf - Agent still experiences high moral strain but feels powerless to disobey - normally in autonomous state= free to behave according to their own principles and feels as sense of responsibility for their own actions - autonomy — AGENTIC SHIFT —> agentic state - MILGRAM= agenic shift occurs when someone else is considered an authority figure - The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position on the social hierarchy - When one person in charge others defer to legitimate authority (and agenic shift occurs) BINDING FACTORS - MILGRAM= many pps wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so - They were able to remain in a state due to binding factors (aspect of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain) - Strategies to employ this involve victim blaming

Answer 10

- Society structured in hierarchical way - The authority that parents, teachers etc yield is legitimate in the sense its agreed by society - it’s accepted that authority figures are allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly - Some people have power to punish - Subsequently we voluntarily give up some of our free will and hand control over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately (e.g. courts) - problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive (DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY) - charismatic and powerful leaders (HITLER) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that cruel and dangerous - E.g. experimenter in MILGRAM

Answer 11

AGENTIC STATE 😋✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is that milligrams own studies support the role of the agenic state in obedience E- for example when guilty participants resisted giving shocks and asked who was responsible if Mr Wallace was harmed, the experimenter replied “I am responsible”. After this participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. E- this shows that once participants perceive if they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, just as Milgram expected ❌ A LIMITED EXPLANATION P- one limitation is that the agenic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience. E- for example it does not explain the findings of RANK and JACOBSONS nurses study, in which they found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient (despite the doctor being a perceived authority figure) E- this means that since most of the nurses remained or autonomous, the agenic shift can only count for some situations of obedience 😋❌ OBEDIENCE ALIBI REVISITED P- another weakness is that there are instances of behaviour challenging the agent explanation E- for example MANDEL describes an incident in ww2 in which reserve police battalion 10 one shot many civilians in a small town in Poland despite not having direct orders to do so. E- this means that the agentic state does not apply to all situations as the men continue to behave autonomously whilst abusing their power LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY ✅ EXPLAINS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES P- one strength of the legitimacy explanation is that it is useful account of cultural differences in obedience E- this is because obedience in many cross cultural studies differs, e.g. Whilst KILHAM and MANN found that only 16% of female Australian participants went all the way up to 450 V in a Milgram style study, MANTELL Found a very different figure for German participants- 85% E- this shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate. It reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures 😋CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL DISOBEDIENCE ❌ P- one limitation is that legitimacy can explain all instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted E- for example, most of the nurses in RANK and JACOBSON’S study disobeyed despite them working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Furthermore, some of Milgrams participants disobeyed, despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority. E- this means that in its tendencies to appeal if they have greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of an authority figure 😋✅ REAL WORLD CRIMES OF OBEDIENCE P- A strength of legitimacy of authority comes from real world evidence E- for example HAMILTON and KELMAN argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of power hierarchy of the US Army- commanding offices operate within a clearer and more legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have greater power to punish E- this means that destructive authority is harder to disobey the more punishment that is threatened, And hence reinforces the theory

Answer 12

- THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: 1. Authoritarian personality and obedience 2. origins of the authoritarian personality 3. ADORNOS research

Answer 13

- Anti semitism of the holocaust - unlike MILGRAM, they believed a higher level of obedience was a psychological disorder (pathological) - Causes lie in PERSONALLY rather than SITUATION

Answer 14

- Extreme respect for (and submissiveness) towards authority - View Society is weaker than it once was and believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as patriotism and family - Contempt for those of inferior social status - Inflexible outlook on the world (no grey areas) ^ - Very uncomfortable with uncertainty (everything right or wrong) - People who are ‘other’ (e.g. people of different ethnic groups) are responsible for ills of society - ‘other’= convenient target for authoritarians

Answer 15

- Answer lies in childhood, often due to harsh parenting - Parenting style typically involves strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism of perceived - Parents offer conditional love - childhood experiences create resentment and hostility but child cannot express these feelings against parents as they believe it will lead to punishment - Instead they displace onto who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating) - Leads to hatred towards those who perceived inferior - A psychodynamic approach

Answer 16

PROCEDURE- - More than 2000 middle-class white Americans - Measure unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups - research as developed several measurement scales, including the potential for fascism scale (F scale) - examples of questions on the questionnaire include ‘ Obedience and respect for authority of the most important virtues for children to learn’ , and ‘ There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great, love gratitude, and respect for his parents’. FINDINGS- - People with authoritarian learnings (high score on F scale and other measures) identified with strong people who were generally contemptuous of the weak - conscious of status and extreme respect and servility to those of highest status (traits that are the basis of obedience) - Authoritarian people have a certain cognitive style in which there was no fuzziness between categories of people (black and white thinking) - Had fixed and distinct stereotypes about other groups (positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice)

Answer 17

✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is evidence from milligram supporting the authoritarian personality E- for example, ELMS and MILGRAM interviewed a small sample of participants who were fully obedient from the original study. These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher overall on the F scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants. E- This findings supports ADORNOS view that obedient people may show similar characteristics to people who have authoritarian personality ❌ COUNTERPOINT P- However, weakness is that when researchers analysed individual subscales of the F scale they found obedient participants had a number of characteristics unusual for authoritarians E- for example milligrams obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood, or have a hostile attitude towards their mothers E- this means that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex. The obedient participants were unlike authoritarians in so many ways the authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience. ❌ LIMITED EXPLAINATION P- one limitation is that authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population E- for example in pre-war Germany millions of individual displayed obedient, racist and anti semitic behaviour, despite differing personalities. It is unlikely that all individuals in Germany could possess an authoritarian personality. E- This means that theory is limited because alternative explanations, such as social identity theory (individuals identified with the Nazi state) are far more appropriate. ❌ ACQUIESCENCE BIAS P- one limitation of Adornos research is that it may be subject to acquiescence bias E- this is because the self report technique measuring authoritarianism was a questionnaire, which is subject to the tendency of agreeing to all the items on a questionnaire regardless of the content of the question. This was reinforced by JACKSON and MESSIC who created a version of the F scale whether the items with the opposite in meaning to the original questionnaire. Upon giving the original and reversed questions to the same group of respondents, they found a positive correlation between the two sets of results (not what we would expect) E- this means that Adornos results may have been due to flawed methodology rather than actual evidence

Answer 18

1. SOCIAL SUPPORT 1.1 Resisting conformity 1.2 Resisting obedience 2. LOCUS OF CONTROL 2.1 LOC 2.2 the LOC continuum 2.3resistance to social influence

Answer 19

RESISTING CONFORMITY - pressure to conform can be resisted if others are not conforming - This is demonstrated in ASCHs research, in which a dissenter was able to ‘free’ the participant from conformity by acting as a model of independent behaviour. - The dissenter broke the perceived unanimity of the group, providing social support and allowing the participant to think independently. - This was the case, even if the confederate not conforming was giving an incorrect answer. RESISTING OBEDIENCE - similarly the pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who has seen to disobey - in one of milligrams variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65 to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate - whilst the participant may not follow the disobedient behaviour of the confederate, they see the confederate as a model of dissent, which frees the participant to act from his own conscience and align with disobedient behaviour - disobedient challenges the legitimacy of authority of the authority figure —> easier for others to disobey

Answer 20

LOC- - ROTTER proposed locus of control- a concept concerned with external control versus internal control. - Suggested that some people have internal LOCs, believing that things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (e.g. failing an exam because they didn’t study) - Suggested that some people have external LOCs, believing that things that happen are outside their control (e.g. failing an exam due to bad luck) - LOC is a continuous scale, meaning most people neither internal or external, but rather somewhere in between. - High external LOC and high internal LOC at either end of the continuum, low internal LOC and low external LOC somewhere in the middle. RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE - People with high internal LOC more able to resist pressures to conform or obey as they take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences (base decisions on their own beliefs rather than others) - On the other hand, people with high external LOC very submissive to obedience as they believe things come down to chance and they have no personal control over their decisions -Alternatively, it is argued that people with high internal LOC are more self-confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence. This leads to greater resistance to social influence. - Nice Also have characteristics of leaders who have less need for social approval than followers.

Answer 21

SOCIAL SUPPORT ✅ RWA - One strength is research evidence for the positive effective social support - for example, ALBRECHT evaluated teen fresh start, an eight week program to help adolescence age 14 to 19 resist peer pressure to smoke. ALBRECHT found that adolescents who were given a buddy at the beginning of the programme (who was slightly older and provided social support) were far less likely to smoke by the end of the program compared a control group of participants who did not have a buddy. E- This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world ✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DISSENTING PEERS P- another strength is evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience E- for example GAMSONs participants were told to provide evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. Resistance was far higher than in Milgrams study. This is because participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do. 88.8% of participants disobeyed. E- this shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining legitimacy of an authority figure ❌ QUICK WEAKNESS - ALLEN and LEVINE, ASCH STYLE. dissenter good eyesight= 64% refusal to conform whereas 3% with no social support. HOWEVER, not always significant as resistance only 36% when dissenter had thick glasses. ✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience E- for example, HOLLAND repeated Milgrams baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. he found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest level. Where is only 23% of externals did not continue the internal show greater resistance to authority in a Milgram style situation. E- this shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, increasing the validity of LOC as an explanation for obedience ❌ CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH P- one limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance E- for example, JEAN TWENGE analyse data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period. The data showed that the time span people became more resistant to obedience, but also more external. This is a surprising outcome, as if resistance is linked to an internal locus of control we would’ve expected people to become more internal. E- TMT control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social social influence

Answer 22

1 MINORITY INFLUENCE 1.1 consistency 1.2 commitment 1.3 flexibility 2. EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF CHANGE

Answer 23

- when one person or small group of people influence the beliefs and behaviour of other people - Distinct from conformity where the majority is doing the influencing (majority influence) - most likely leads to internalisation (both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed) - MOSCOVI studies this with his blue slide green slide research

Answer 24

- MOSCOVI’S blue slide green slide study PROCEDURE - six people was asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides - Slide colours varied in intensity - Participants had to states whether the slides with blue or green - In each group to confederate consistently said the slides were green FINDINGS- - Participants gave the wrong answer on 8.42% of the trials (agreed with confederate) - a second group of participants was exposed to an inconsistent minority (Confederate said green 24 times and blue 12 times) - In this case agreement with confederates fell to 1.25% - in a third study no confederates - got it wrong on 0.25% of the trials

Answer 25

- CONSISTENCY - COMMITMENT - FLEXIBILITY

Answer 26

CONSISTENCY: - Minority must be consistent - Overtime, consistency increases interest from other people - Can take form of synchronic consistency (everyone saying the same same thing) or diachronic consistency (saying the same thing for a long time) - makes people rethink their own views COMMITMENT - Must demonstrate commitment - Sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views - presenting risk to minority shows greater commitment - Majority pay more attention - called the AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE FLEXIBILITY - NEMETH= relentless consistency can be offputting as the individual repeating the behaviour may seem rigid, unbending and dogmatic - consistency alone is unlikely to gain many converts to minority position - Minority needs to be prepared to adapt the point of view and acceptable compromises (strike balance between consistency and flexibility)

Answer 27

- SNOWBALL EFFECT - hearing something new makes an individual stop and think more deeply about it, especially if the source of this other view is consistent, committed and flexible - This deep processing importance in process of conversion to a minority viewpoint - Overtime increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position (have become converted) - The more this happens the faster the rate of conversion - Gradually the minority becomes the majority and change has occurred

Answer 28

✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR CONSISTENCY P- one strength is research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency E- for example, WOOD carried out a meta analysis of almost 100 studies similar to MOSCOVI’S slide green blue slide study, and found that minorities that were seen as being consistent were the most influential E- this suggests that presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority ✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DEEPER PROCESSING P- another strength is evidence showing that change in the minorities position does involve the processing of the minority views E- for example MARTIN conducted a study in which he presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants agreement. One group of participants that had a minority group agree with the initial view while another group had a majority group agree with it. Participants were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again. People were less willing to change their initial opinions if they’d listened to a minority group than if they’d listened to a majority group. E-this means that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect supporting the central argument about how minority influence works. ❌ COUNTERPOINT P- One weakness of research studies is that artificial situations are used E- for example in MARTAINS Research there was clear distinctions between the majority and the minority. However, in real world social influence situations this is rarely the case as it is far more complicated, e.g. majorities often have a lot more power and status than minorities, and minorities are very committed to their causes due to facing very hostile opposition. These factors are not incorporated into the research. (the minority is simply the smallest group.) E- the full Martins findings are very limited and what they can tell us about minority influence in real life situations ❌ ARTIFICIAL TASKS P- one limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are often just as artificial as ASCHS line judgement task E- For example, MOSCOVIS task of identify the colour of the slide is rather trivial compared to how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majorities in real life. In cases such as jury decision-making and political campaigning, the outcomes of our more important sometimes even a matter of life or death. This means that findings of minority influence studies have low external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real words situations.

Answer 29

1. LESSONS FROM MINORITY INFLUENCE RESEARCH 2. LESSONS FROM CONFORMITY RESEARCH 3. LESSONS FROM OBEDIENCE RESEARCH

Answer 30

- how social influence leads to social change using example of the African American civil rights movement of 1950s and 60s 1. DRAWING ATTENTION THROUGH SOCIAL PROOF - In the 19505, black and white segregation applied to all parts of America - Black neighbourhoods and some schools and restaurants in South only for whites - civil rights matches of period drew attention to the situation —> provide social proof 2. CONSISTENCY - Civil rights activist represented minority of population - However position remain consistent - millions of people participated in non aggressive marches over the years always presenting the same message 3. DEEPER PROCESSING - Activism meant people who had simply accepted the status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of it 4. THE AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE - individuals risked their lives numerous times - E.g. freedom riders were mixed racial groups who boarded buses in the south, challenging racial segregation of transport - Many beaten - Personal risk indicates strong belief in reinforces message 5. THE SNOWBALL EFFECT - Activists e.g. Martin Luther King gradually got the attention of the US government - More and more people back to the minority - in 1964 the US civil rights act prohibited discrimination, MINORITY —> MAJORITY 6. SOCIAL CRYPTOMNESIA - Many people have memory change occurred, but don’t remember how it happened - Some people have no memory (cryptoamnesia) of the events that led to the change

Answer 31

1. USE OF DISSENT - Dissent which breaks the power of the majority, encouraging others to do likewise, ultimately has the potential to lead to social change. - demonstrated through the dissenting confederate in ASCHs research 2. USE OF NSI - normative social influence is useful in exploiting conformity and health and environmental campaigns - They provide information about what others are doing (e.g. saying everyone is recycling or no young people smoke) - Social changes encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing (whether it’s true or not)

Answer 32

1. ROLE OF DISOBEDIENT ROLE MODELS - Disobedient role models have a huge impact on obedience - demonstrated in MILGRAMS variation what the teacher refuses to give shock to the learner. Obedience in genuine participants plummeted 2. GRADUAL COMMITMENT - ZIMBARDO= obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment - Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one - drift into a new kind of behaviour

Answer 33

✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR NORMATIVE INFLUENCES P- one strength is it research is shown that social influence processes based on psychological research do work E- e.g NOLAN conducted the study in which researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego in California every week one month, the key message being that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As control some resident added a different message that just asked them to save energy with no reference to others behaviour. There was significant decrease in energy usage from the first group versus the second. E- tmt conformity can lead to social change through operation of NSI (valid asf) ❌ COUNTERPOINT P- however, one weakness is that some studies show that peoples behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms E- e.g FOXCROFT, in review of social norms interventions (part of gold standard cochrane collaboration) reviewed 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use. Research showed that there was only a small reduction in drinking quantity of the students and no effect on drinking frequency. E- TMT using using NSI does not always produce long-term social change ✅ MINORITY INFLUENCE EXPLAINS CHANGE P- another strength is that psychologist can explain how minority influence brings about social change E- for example, NEMETH claims social change is due to a type of thinking that minorities inspire- when people consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking. Divergent thinking is broad rather than narrow in which to think actively searches for information and weighs up more options.NEMETH argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions E- TMT dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open minds in ways majorities cannot ❌ ROLE OF DEEPER PROCESSING P- one limitation is that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change E- e.g MACKIE disagrees with the notion that people can be converted due to deep processing of minorities views. MACKIE argues that it is majority influence that lead to deeper processing if you do not share their views. This is because as humans, we like to believe people share our views and think the same way as us. When we find the majority believe something different we are forced to think about the argument and reasoning out of want to conform. E- TMT a central element of minority influence has been challenged causing doubt on its validity is an explanation for social change

Social Influence Flashcards

(60 cards)