Social Influence (Paper 1)

Question 1

What is Social Psychology

Answer 1

Social Psychology looks at the relationships between people and how people affect each other’s behaviour (social influence).

Question 2

What is Conformity

Answer 2

Conformity is a form of social influence where a person changes their behaviour, attitudes or beliefs so that they are in line with the majority. This occurs because of pressure from the majority, this pressure can be real or imagined.

Question 3

Compliance

Answer 3

Compliance is when individuals adjust the behaviour, attitudes or beliefs they show in public, so that they are in line with the majority.

There is no change to private behaviour, attitudes or beliefs and conformity only lasts while the group is present. It is therefore a superficial and temporary form of conformity.

Question 4

Identification

Answer 4

Identification is when an individual accepts social influence because they want to be associated with a role model or a social group.

By adopting the role model/group’s behaviour, attitudes or beliefs they feel connected to the role model/group.

Question 5

Internalisation

Answer 5

Internalisation is when individuals adjust their behaviour, attitudes or beliefs,publicly AND privately, so that they are in line with the majority.

The individual examines their own behaviour, attitudes or beliefs based on what others are saying and decides that the majority is correct. This is deeper than compliance and more permanent.

Question 6

What is Normative Social Influence (NSI)

Answer 6

Normative social influence is where a person conforms to fit in with a group because they have a desire to be liked and want to fit in that group.

Normative social influence is likely to lead to compliance, where people will agree publicly with the group but privately they do not change their personal opinions.

Question 7

What is Informational Social Influence (ISI)

Answer 7

Informational social influence is where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right, and look to others who they believe may have more information. It is more likely to happen if the situation is ambiguous (the correct answer is not clear) or when others are experts.

Informational social influence leads to internalisation, where people publicly AND privately change their opinions.

Question 8

Strengths for NSI and ISI as explanations for conformity (3) (All studies)

Answer 8

Asch (1951) asked participants to say which of three ‘test lines’ was the same as the ‘standard line’. The participants were in a group with confederates who purposefully gave the same wrong answer, even though the correct answer was obvious. In 33% of the trials the participants conformed to the group and gave the wrong answer (the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1%). Participants conformed due to normative social influence. After the experiment they claimed that they knew the correct answer but were worried that the group would ridicule them if they answered differently to everyone else.

Jenness (1932) asked participant to estimate how many beans they thought were in a jar. Each participant had to make an individual estimate first, and then do the same as a group. He found that when the task was carried out in a group, the participants would report estimates of roughly the same value (even though they had previously reported quite different estimates as individuals).This is likely to be an example of informational social influence as participants would be uncertain about the actual number of beans in the jar and so be genuinely influenced by the group.

AllSherif (1935) used the autokinetic effect to investigate conformity. This is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion). It was discovered that when participants were tested individually their estimates of how far the light actually moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different.Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved. Sherif found that over numerous estimates of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two because of informational social influence. The task was ambiguous so they looked to others for the answer.

Question 9

Weaknesses for NSI and ISI as explanations for conformity (2)

Answer 9

It has been suggested that there is a third explanation for conformity, not included in this theory, known as ingratiational conformity. This is similar to normative social influence, but group influence does not enter into the decision to conform. It is instead motivated by the need to impress or gain favour, rather than the fear of rejection (McLeod, 2007).

Dispositional factors (i.e. personality traits) may also impact whether or not a person conforms. People with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform than those with an external locus of control. Normative social influence and informational social influence cannot explain this finding. A person’s locus of control refers to the extent to which they believe they have control over their own behaviour. People with an internal locus of control believe that what occurs in their life is the result of their own behaviour and actions. People with an external locus of control believe strongly that what happens in their lives is outside of their control.

Question 10

What was the procedure to test variables affecting conformity (Asch)

Answer 10

Asch (1951) placed a naïve participant (they do not know what the experiment is about) in a group with several confederates (people who pretend to be participants but are actually part of the experiment). The group was asked to look at a ‘standard line’ and then decide individually which of three other ‘test lines’ was the same length as the standard line, without discussing it with one another. They then gave their responses one at a time out loud. The answer was obvious; however, the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 of the 18 trials. The naïve participant was the last, or second to last, one to give
their response so they heard the rest of the groups’ responses before giving their own.

Question 11

What were the findings surrounding variables affecting conformity (Asch)

Answer 11

The chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1% but 33% of the responses given by participants were incorrect. 75% of participants conformed in at least one of the 18 trials. 5% of participants conformed on every trial but 25% did not conform on any trial. When Asch interviewed his participants afterwards he discovered that the majority of participants who had conformed had continued to trust their own judgment but gave the same answer as the group to avoid disapproval (normative social influence).

Question 12

What were the three variables affecting conformity that were found

Answer 12

Group Size, Task Difficulty and Unanimity

Question 13

How was Group Size tested

Answer 13

Asch (1956) changed group size. Groups with one confederate had a conformity rate of 3%. Groups with two confederates had a conformity rate of 13%. With three confederates conformity rose significantly to 32%. It appears that we can resist the influence of two people fairly easily, but three people are much harder to resist. There was little change to conformity once groups have reached four or more confederates.

Question 14

How was Task Difficulty tested

Answer 14

Asch (1956) decided to adjust the task difficulty so he made the test lines more similar in length. Under these circumstances the level of conformity increased, possibly because informational social influence was starting to have an impact. This is because when we are uncertain, we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task became the greater the informational social influence and the conformity.

Question 15

How was Unanimity tested

Answer 15

When the group had unanimity (everyone agreed) conformity increased. However, when only one other person in the group gave a different answer from the others, meaning that the group was not unanimous, conformity dropped. Asch (1956) found that even the presence of just one confederate who went against the majority reduced conformity from 33% to 5%. Even when the confederate gave a different wrong answer to the rest of the group conformity dropped from 33% to 9%.

Question 16

What were the strengths of Asch’s study

Answer 16

None - trick question

Question 17

What were the weaknesses of Asch’s study (5)

Answer 17

Asch (1951, 1956) may not have temporal validity (when a study reflects the current time period). The study was conducted 80 years ago and it is possible that people may have been more conformist then than they are now. Post-war attitudes that people should work together and onsent rather than dissent may have affected the results.

The task given to the participants, to match line lengths, is artificial and unlikely to occur in real life. Conformity usually takes place in a social context, often with people we know rather than strangers. The study therefore lacks mundane realism (it does not reflect real life) and ecological validity (cannot be generalised to real life).

This study is gender biased because the sample only contained male participants. This means that the study may not represent female behaviour. It is also culturally biased because it only included white American men and may not reflect the behaviour of other cultures. However, this study has since been replicated (repeated) with different samples (the people who take part in a study) and cultures, and has proven to be reliable (similar results have been found).

Asch (1951, 1956) used a volunteer sample (participants offered to take part in his experiment) whose behaviour may not represent that of a wider population. This means the study does not have population validity and the results cannot be generalised to the wider population.

There are several ethical issues with this study, including deception(participants believed they were taking part in a test of perception), lack of informed consent (participants did not agree to take part in a study about conformity) and psychological harm (participants were put in a stressful and embarrassing situation). However, it was necessary to deceive participants about the purpose of the study to prevent demand characteristics (when participants change their behaviour because they are in a study) which would make the study not valid (when a study does not measure what it intends to measure).

Question 18

What are Social Roles

Answer 18

Social roles are the behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a social position or status. People can conform to the social roles assigned to them.

Question 19

What was the procedure to test Conformity to Social Roles (Zimbardo)

Answer 19

Zimbardo (1973) wanted to investigate whether conformity to social roles would alter a person’s behaviour. A simulated prison was created in the basement of the Stanford University Psychology department. 24 emotionally and psychologically stable young men were recruited and randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard. The guards had complete control over the prisoners who were confined to their cells around the clock except for meals, toilet privileges, head counts and work. The guards were told to maintain order using any means necessary, except for physical violence.

Question 20

What were the finding surrounding Conformity to Social Roles (Zimbardo)

Answer 20

On the second day the prisoners tried to rebel, they ripped off their prison numbers and barricaded themselves in their cell. The guards sprayed them with carbon dioxide, stripped them naked, took their beds away and forced the ringleaders into solitary confinement. Over the next few days the guards became increasingly cruel and aggressive, creating a brutal atmosphere. Prisoners became passive and depressed as the guards used verbal abuse, forced them to do repeated press ups, pushed them into urinals and left them in a pitch black cupboard for hours. The guards became so aggressive that the study had to be ended after only six days (it was meant to last two weeks), because of concerns about the psychological health of the prisoners, who were showing signs of severe distress.

Question 21

What were the strengths of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 21

None - trick question

Question 22

What were the weaknesses of Zimbardo’s study (5)

Answer 22

The study was highly unethical as prisoners were subjected to psychological harm. Five prisoners had to be released early because of their extreme reactions, such as crying, rage and acute anxiety. However, Zimbardo did not expect the guards to behave in the way they did so this harm could not have been anticipated.

Zimbardo took on the role of prison warden, became very involved in the experiment and lost his objectivity. He had to be told by a colleague to end the experiment because of concerns over the distress of the prisoners. This means the validity of the findings can be questioned.

The sample was unrepresentative as all the participants were white (with one exception), young, middle class, male students from Stanford University. Therefore, the results cannot be generalised to women (gender bias) or other cultures (cultural bias).

The guards in Zimbardo’s experiment may have behaved the way they did due to demand characteristics; some of the participants reported afterwards that they thought that the experimenters wanted them to behave aggressively, and this is why they behaved the way they did. This means the study is not valid.

Some of the guards did not conform to the role given to them and were very reluctant to become involved in cruelty towards the prisoners, whereas other guards were very abusive. This seems to suggest that individual differences are important in determining the extent to which participants will conform to social roles.

Question 23

What is Obedience

Answer 23

Obedience is behaving as instructed to by an authority figure. Authority figures have status and/or power over others.

Question 24

What was the procedure to test Obedience to Authority (Milgram) (Situation)

Answer 24

Milgram (1963) placed an advert in a newspaper asking for male participants to take part in a study about the effect of punishment on learning. 40 participants were invited to the Psychology Department of Yale University and were met by the experimenter, a man in a white laboratory coat, who was really a confederate. They were introduced to a 47-year-old man whom they were told was another participant called Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace was also a confederate who pretended to have a weak heart. Mr. Wallace and the participant were asked to pick notes out of a hat to determine whether they would play the role of a teacher or a learner in the experiment. This was set up so that Mr. Wallace was always the learner and the naïve participant was always the teacher. The participant was then told that his role as teacher was to punish the learner if they made a mistake on a memory test by administering an electric shock, increasing the voltage each time the learner made a mistake.

Question 25

What was the procedure to test Obedience to Authority (Milgram) (Participant)

Answer 25

The leaner was taken to a room and hooked up to the electric shock machine. The teacher was placed in an adjoining room with the electric shock machine controls and the experimenter. The electric shock machine and the controls were fake but were very convincing. To administer shocks, the teacher pressed switches on the electric shock machine controls. Each switch was labelled with a voltage rating, starting at 15 volts and rising in increments of 15 volts to a level of 450 volts. Additionally, each group of four switches was labelled with text such as ‘Slight Shock’, ‘Moderate Shock’, all the way up to ‘Danger: Severe Shock’. The final few switches were marked ‘XXX’.

As the shocks became more severe Mr Wallace demanded to be released from the experiment, screamed, kicked the wall, complained about his weak heart, refused to answer the questions and finally went silent. The experimenter ensured that the teacher continued with the experiment. When the teacher showed reluctance to shock the leaner the experimenter prompted him to continue, using one of four statements, ‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires that you continue’, and ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue ’and ‘you have no choice, you must continue’

Question 26

What were the findings surrounding Obedience to Authority (Milgram)

Answer 26

100% of participants gave shocks up to 300 volts (when Mr Wallace banged on the wall and stopped answering) and 65% of participants gave electric shocks all the way up to the maximum 450 volts. Participants felt a high level of stress during the experiments, they showed symptoms including sweating, trembling, and, in some cases, anxious and hysterical laughter. Despite this, most were obedient and willing to inflict potentially lethal shocks on a man with a weak heart.

Question 27

What were the strengths of Milgram’s study (1)

Answer 27

Despite the ethical issues with Milgram’s (1963) study many psychologists feel that after conducting a cost-benefit analysis (weighing the harm a study has done against the valuable knowledge is has provided) the study was worthwhile. We now know that most people could potentially do the same thing, leading to people taking more responsibility and not blindly following orders. The participants did not suffer any true long-term emotional disturbances and most (84%) of them said they were happy to have taken part and that they had learnt something important from the experience.

Question 28

What were the weaknesses of Milgram’s study (4)

Answer 28

Participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment as they were told it was about memory when it was really about obedience (this also means they did not give their informed consent to take part). Participants were also led to believe that the electric shocks they were delivering were real and that Mr Wallace was another participant who had a weak heart. However, this deception was necessary to avoid demand characteristics and therefore increase the validity of the study.

During the experiment the participants became extremely distressed (some became hysterical), and may have even thought that they had killed Mr Wallace, so they were not protected from psychological harm. However, Milgram did not expect his participants to obey and so this psychological harm could not have been anticipated.

Several participants asked to leave the experiment but were told that they were not allowed; this violates their right to withdraw from the experiment.

The sample is unrepresentative as all of the participants were white American males. Therefore the results cannot be generalised to women (gender bias) or other cultures (cultural bias). However, this study has since been replicated with women and the obedience rates was not significantly different.

Question 29

What were the Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Answer 29

Proximity, Location and Uniform

Question 30

How was Proximity tested

Answer 30

In the proximity variation both the teacher and the learner were seated in the same room. Obedience levels were 40%, as the teacher was now able to experience Mr. Wallace’s anguish directly.

In a more extreme variation, known as the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to actually force the learner’s arm down onto a metal plate to administer the shocks. The obedience rate was 30%.

The proximity of the experimenter is also important. In the absent experimenter variation the experimenter left the room after giving his instructions and gave subsequent orders by telephone. The vast majority of participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to. The obedience rate was 21%

Question 31

How was Location tested

Answer 31

In the alternative setting variation the experiment was carried out in a rundown office in downtown Bridgeport Connecticut by an experimenter wearing casual clothes. All the other variations were carried out at the impressive Yale University. The obedience rate was 48%. Participants reported the location of Yale University gave them confidence in the integrity of the experimenter. The lower status of the rundown office changed participants’ perception of the legitimacy of the authority of the experimenter. The experimenter had a higher authority at Yale University than in the run-down office, which led to higher obedience rates.

Question 32

How was Uniform tested

Answer 32

Uniforms have a powerful impact on obedience. Uniforms are visible symbols of authority. Sometimes uniforms show that someone has power and status (e.g. a police officer’s uniform) however, on other occasions they show that someone does not have power and status (e.g. a prisoner’s uniform). Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passer-by to pick some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop. The confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman or just in smart clothes. 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed the civilian. A person in a guard uniform is more likely to be obeyed.

Question 33

What is Agentic State as a Situational Explanation of Obedience

Answer 33

The agentic state, proposed by Milgram (1974), explains how individuals may obediently carry out harmful orders under authority. It involves a shift from autonomous to agentic behaviour, where individuals see themselves merely as instruments of authority, thus feeling less personal responsibility. This shift occurs due to trust in authority, the gradual nature of orders, and psychological buffers. It allows individuals to maintain a positive self-image despite negative actions. Agentic state is crucial for societal hierarchies, enabling obedience to authority figures like parents, teachers, and police, ensuring social order.

Question 34

What are the strengths of Agentic State as a Situational Explanation of Obedience (1)

Answer 34

Participants in Milgram’s experiment were less likely to shock Mr. Wallace when they were in the same room as him and could see the consequences of their actions (i.e. there were no buffers). This supports the idea of an agentic state. Being in close proximity to Mr. Wallace and seeing him in pain would have
prevented some participants from going into an agentic state.

Question 35

What are the weaknesses of Agentic State as a Situational Explanation of Obedience (1)

Answer 35

Without buffers people should not go into an agentic state and obey an order to harm someone. However, Mandel (1998) reported the case of Major Wilhelm Trapp. In 1942, in the Polish village of Jozefow, Major Trapp was given orders to take a large group of Jewish people to the edge of the village and have them shot. Although the members of his battalion were given the chance to say no, and be assigned to other duties, few did, and the massacre went ahead. This occurred despite the victims being in close proximity to the soldiers

Question 36

What is Legitimate Authority as a Situational Explanation of Obedience

Answer 36

Legitimate authority asserts that people are more likely to obey individuals in higher positions within the social hierarchy. This recognition is reinforced by visible symbols of authority, such as uniforms. Legitimate authority is crucially influenced by the setting, system, and orderliness of the situation, particularly in environments like the military or prison where obedience to potentially harmful commands is expected.

Question 37

What are the strengths of Legitimate Authority as a Situational Explanation of Obedience (2)

Answer 37

Hofling (1966) found that nurses would obey a dangerous order from a doctor because they were in a hospital location. Nurses received a phone call from an unknown doctor (who was really an actor) called Dr. Smith. He asked her to administer 20 milligrams of a drug called Astroten (really just a sugar pill) to a
patient. This broke hospital rules as it was twice the maximum dose (as indicated on the bottle), the instructions were given over the phone, the doctor was unknown, and the medicine was not on the stock list. 95% of nurses carried out these instructions, despite the potential danger, because doctors have
legitimate authority.

Bickman (1974) asked confederates to order passer-by to pick some litter off the street or move away from a bus stop. The confederates were dressed as either a guard, milkman or just in smart clothes. 90% of people obeyed the guard but only 50% obeyed the civilian. A person in a guard uniform is more
likely to be perceived as a legitimate authority figure.

Question 38

What are the weaknesses of Legitimate Authority as a Situational Explanation of Obedience (1)

Answer 38

Legitimate authority does not explain why some people are able to resist the order of authority figures. 35% of people in Milgram’s (1963) study refused to obey the experimenter, even though he had legitimate authority in that situation.

Question 39

What is a Dispositional Explanation

Answer 39

Dispositional explanations of behaviour claim that individuals’ personality characteristics determine their behaviour, not situational influences in the environment.

Question 40

What is an Authoritarian Personality

Answer 40

Adorno argued that authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures. Authoritarian personalities have a collection of traits which make them more obedient. These include;

• servile towards people of perceived higher status,
• hostile towards people of lower status (scapegoating),
• preoccupied with power,
• inflexible in their beliefs and values,
• conformist and conventional (e.g. rule following),
• likely to categorise people as ‘us’ or ‘them’,
• dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity).

Question 41

Why would people develop an Authoritarian Personality

Answer 41

Adorno (1950) thought that people developed these personalities due to receiving extremely strict/rigid parenting, usually involving physical punishment. This creates feelings of hostility which are displaced onto weaker others who cannot fight back and are therefore safe. They cannot take out their anger on their parents because they fear them, so instead they repress their anger and act in a submissive way towards them. They then extend this submissive behaviour to all authority figures.

Question 42

What questionnaire did Adorno create to measure Authoritarian Personalities

Answer 42

Adorno (1950) developed a questionnaire to measure authoritarian personalities called the F (Fascism) scale. Participants are asked to rate how much they agree with statements such as ‘obedience and respect for authority are important virtues children should learn’ and ‘rules are there to follow, not to be changed’

Question 43

Strengths of the Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation of Obedience (2)

Answer 43

Miller (1975) found that people who scored high on the F Scale were more likely to obey an order to hold onto some electric wiring while working on an arithmetic problem, compared to people who scored low on the F Scale.

Altemeyer (1981) ordered participants to give themselves increasing levels of electric shocks when they made a mistake on a learning task. There was a significant correlation between those willing to shock themselves and high scores on the F Scale.

Question 44

Weaknesses of the Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation of Obedience (3)

Answer 44

Situational variables may be more important than dispositional ones. Milgram (1974) has conducted several variations of his original experiments with vastly different results. Obedience was 100% when Mr Wallace made no noise (e.g. no screams or requests to leave). However, the obedience rate was 0% when there were two authority figures who disagreed with each other (one wanted the
teacher to continue, the other wanted them to stop).

Dispositional explanations cannot explain obedience in entire societies, because authoritarian personalities are not common. Far fewer than 65% of people have authoritarian personalities, so it cannot be the only explanation for the level of obedience found in the original Milgram (1963) study.

It is possible that rather than authoritarian personality causing obedience, a lack of education causes an authoritarian personality AND obedience. Middendorp and Meleon (1990) have found that less educated people are more likely to have an authoritarian personality and Milgram (1974) found that participants with lower levels of education were more obedient.

Question 45

What is Social Support Theory as a Situational Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence

Answer 45

Social support suggests that when one person refuses to conform or obey, it increases the likelihood that others will also resist. This is because the presence of a dissenting ally breaks the unanimity of the group, leading individuals to consider alternative viewpoints and feel more confident in their own decisions. Additionally, observing a disobedient role model challenges the legitimacy of authority figures, making individuals more inclined to defy them.

Question 46

Strengths of Social Support Theory as a Situational Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence (2)

Answer 46

Milgram (1974) asked participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, Mr. Wallace, when he got a question wrong. The shocks were not real, but the participants believed they were. 65% of participants shocked Mr. Wallace up to 450 volts. However, when there was another confederate who acted as a
disobedient role model and refused to shock Mr. Wallace, only 10% of the participants delivered electric shocks up to 450 volts.

Asch (1951) asked participants to say which of three ‘test lines’ was the same as the ‘standard line’. The participants were in a group with confederates who purposefully gave the same wrong answer, even though the correct answer was obvious. In 33% of the trials the participants conformed to the group and gave the wrong answer (the chance of making a genuine mistake on this task was only 1%). However, conformity dropped to 5% when one confederate acted as an ally to the participant and gave the right answer.

Question 47

Weaknesses of Social Support Theory as a Situational Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence (1)

Answer 47

In both of the original versions of the studies (Asch and Milgram) some participants were able to resist social influence and refuse to conform/obey, even though they had no social support. This means that social support is not a complete explanation of resistance to social influence, other factors, such as personality traits, also play a part in allowing people to refuse to conform/obey.

Question 48

What is Rotter’s Dispositional Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence

Answer 48

Locus of Control

Question 49

What is the Locus of Control as a Dispositional Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence

Answer 49

Rotter (1966) proposed that an individual’s personality, specifically their locus of control, determines their tendency to conform or resist social influence. Locus of control ranges from internal to external, with internals believing they control their fate and externals attributing events to external factors like luck. Internals, less likely to conform, are often leaders, less concerned with approval, more self-confident, and believe they control their own circumstances.

Question 50

Strengths of Locus of Control as a Dispositional Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence (2)

Answer 50

Oliner and Oliner (1988) interviewed 406 German people who had sheltered Jewish people from the Nazis during the 1930s and 1940s. These German people had an internal locus of control, which had allowed them to disobey the Nazis.

Milgram (1974) asked participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate,Mr. Wallace, when he got a question wrong. The shocks were not real, but the participants believed they were. 65% of participants obeyed and shocked Mr. Wallace up to 450 volts. Milgram (1974) gave the participants a questionnaire to measure their locus of control and found that the 35% who had disobeyed were far more likely to have an internal locus of control than those who had obeyed.

Question 51

Weaknesses of Locus of Control as a Dispositional Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence (1)

Answer 51

Williams and Warchal (1981) found that conformers were less assertive than non-conformers but that the two groups did not score differently on a test to determine their locus of control. This suggests that assertiveness is more important than locus of control in determining whether or not a person will refuse to conform/obey.

Question 52

What is Minority Influence

Answer 52

Minority influence occurs when very persuasive small groups, or even individuals, can change the way the majority behaves and thinks. Moscovici (1985) considered minority influence to lead to conversion. Conversion is when individuals change their private beliefs and views because of minority influence

Question 53

What are 3 traits for a minority group to have to be most convincing

Answer 53

Commitment, Consistency and Flexibility

Question 54

What is Commitment

Answer 54

Commitment is shown when members of the minority demonstrate their dedication to their belief, perhaps by making sacrifices (augmentation principle), taking risks or being inconvenienced in some way. This shows that the minority is not acting out of self-interest.

Question 55

What is Consistency

Answer 55

Consistency occurs when a minority repeatedly gives the same message over time. This makes a majority reassess their belief and consider the issue more carefully

Question 56

What is Flexibility

Answer 56

Flexibility/being non-dogmatic is when a minority show they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, negotiate and compromise. The majority will then listen to the minority point of view/take their argument more seriously

Question 57

How does minority influence work

Answer 57

1. Drawing Attention to the Issue - Minorities can bring about social change by drawing the majority’s attention to an issue.
2. Consistency of position - Minority groups are more influential when they express arguments consistently, over time and with each other.
3. Deeper processing – other people not part of the minority start to pay attention to the minority by thinking about what the status quo is and perhaps the unjustness of it
4. The augmentation principle - If a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and are taken more seriously – for example, doing something ‘wow’ which will catch the majority’s attention – this supports the minority influence characteristic of commitment
5. The snowball effect - Minority influence initially has a relatively small effect but this then spreads more widely, as more and more people consider the issue being raised, until it reaches a tipping point, where the minority becomes the majority and there is wide-scale social change. This is when conformity will occur either through Normative Social Influence or Informational Social Influence and everyone will follow each other. Perhaps even laws will be made which people are then bound to follow (obedience to authority).
6. Social cryptoamnesia – the majority knows that a social change has occurred but the source of the change and the message itself has become disassociated through the process of social cryptoamnesia and they do not recall how it happened. This could be because it is the law and we all have to obey the law so we don’t always think how this law came about e.g. it is now the law that we have to treat people equally regardless of their background otherwise we will be punished through the Discrimination and Equality Act.

Question 58

Strengths of Minority Influence as a process in Social Change (1)

Answer 58

Moscovici (1969) told 172 female participants that they were taking part in a colour perception task. The naïve participants were placed in groups of six and were shown 36 slides, which were varying shades of blue. Two of the six participants were confederates. The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide. In the consistent condition the confederates said the slide was green in all 36 trials. In the inconsistent condition the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue. In the consistent condition participants were swayed by the minority 8.2% of the time. In the inconsistent
condition the participants only went along with the minority 1.25% of the time. This shows that a consistent minority is more effective than an inconsistent minority

Question 59

Weaknesses of Minority Influence as as a process in Social Change (4)

Answer 59

The samples of studies into minority influence are gender biased. For example, Moscovici (1969) only used women. As a result, we cannot conclude that male participants would respond to minority influence in the same way. Research often suggests that women are more likely to conform than men, therefore further research is needed to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants.

The samples of studies into minority influence are also culturally biased because all of the participants were from America. As a result, the findings cannot be generalised to other populations. We cannot conclude that participants from other cultures would respond to minority influence in the same way.

Most of the studies into minority influence are based on experiments conducted in laboratories. This raises the question of ecological validity. The participants in laboratory experiments are usually a collection of students who do not know each other, and will probably never meet again.

Studies into minority influence have been criticised for deceiving participants. In Moscovici’s (1969) study participants were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test. This also means that Moscovici did not gain participants informed consent. Although it is seen as unethical to deceive participants, Moscovici’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results. If participants were aware of the true aim of the experiment, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently.

Question 60

What is Social Change

Answer 60

Social change refers to the change that occurs in a society and not at an individual level. For example, equal rights for homosexual couples, increases in recycling rates, the smoking ban for public places, and women gaining the vote. Social change occurs when the minority view challenges the majority view and is eventually accepted by the majority

Question 61

What happens once the Minority become the Majority

Answer 61

Once the majority has accepted the minority viewpoint people may conform to this viewpoint due to normative social influence (compliance) and/or informational social influence (internalisation).

Governments/lawmakers can bring about social change through power and through the process of obedience. For example, changing the law to allow gay marriage could mean that people may be more accepting of homosexual rights because changes in the law make a behaviour a social norm which others then adopt.

Dictators can also bring about social change through obedience. This leads to groups of people changing their behaviour because of the fear of punishment/consequences of not obeying.