Social Influence Part Two Flashcards
(20 cards)
Two important individual factors which determine ability to resist pressures to conform
The needs to be an individual
The need to remain in control
Snyder and fromkin (1980)
Deindivuduated a group of students by telling them that their beliefs and attitudes were identical to those of 10000 others.
They “individuated” a second group by telling them their attitudes and beliefs were different.
I’m s later Asch type experiment, the deindividuated students were less likely to conform (the researcher believe that they were trying to re-assert their individual identities.
Needs from control
Burger (1992)
Found people with a high need for control are more likely to resist conformity pressures than those who have a lower need.
Daubman (1993) tested participants in two groups…those who scores highly on a “need for control” scale and those who scored nearer the bottom.
The participants working in pairs to solve puzzles.
At the end of the task, all participants were told they were average at solving puzzles and that their partner had done better.
The findings showed that those with a high score on the need for control scale often became or rested and angered by the feedback, whilst those on a low scale welcomed it and were grateful to receive it.
This supports the idea that attempts to influence are seen as threats to the personal freedom of those who need a high level of personal control.
What variables did Asch change to look at factors affecting conformity?
-naive participant gained a partner ( one of the confederate s switched to giving the correct answers half way through) conformity dropped to 8.7%…the subsoil support provided by an ally acts as a buffer against the pressures to conform.
Resistance to obedience reasons
-prior commitment (revising a previous decision may make us look foolish or indecisive and these are not desirable traits.
Milgram found that 35% participants disobeyed the instructions given to them and refused to continue giving shocks.
What did elms and Milgram (1966) set out to discover?
The background and personality of the 35% of participants who refused to obey.
They found that disobedient participants scores highly on a social responsibly scale and had a high internal locus of control.
Locus of control definition
A locus control orientation is a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do (internal control orientation) or events outside our personal control (external control orientation)
Refers to a persons perception about underlying causes of events in his/her life.
External locus of control continuum, where people have a mixture of internal and external loci or be at either end.
Moral reasoning
Kohl berg (1969) was a college of Milgram
Studied moral development
He found that those participants using a more advanced level of moral reasoning were more able to resist the experimenters verbal prods and consequently showed higher levels of disobedience l
However, other research has found that a higher level of moral reasoning does not always lead to disobedience.
Effective dissenter
David levy (1990) His aim was to find out what characteristics an effective dissenter should have -filmed reconstructions of milgram experiment. His film showed the participant either politely refusing to carry on, or being rude to the experimenter and angrily storming out People who watched the film preferred the polite dissenter. This implies that it is acceptable to disobey as long as the social conventions of courtesy respect are followed.
The lucifer effect zimbardo (2007) recommends that we all try to adopt a ten-step programme to resist unwanted influence:
1) admit mistakes
2) be mindful
3) be responsible
4) assert your individuality
5) respect just authority, rebel against unjust authority
6) balance need for group acceptance with value of own identity
7) be frame vigilant
8) develop a balanced time perspective
9) don’t sacrifice freedoms for the illusion of security
10) oppose unjust systems
Stanley Milgram puppet quote
It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our own awareness is the first step to our liberation. Stanley Milgram (1974)
Social change and minority influence
Research has shown that minorities can be influential as long as they adopt the appropriate style of behaviour.
Moscovici (1985) claims that to influence a majority, minorities must:
- be consistent in their views and never waiver from them
- avoid dogmatism
- use moderate language
Hogg and Vaughn (1998) state that minorities must be seen to:
- be acting out of principle rather than self interest
- have made sacrifices for their cause
- be similar to the majority in terms of class, age and gender
- advocate views which are in line with the current zeitgeist (spirit of the times)
The snowball effect
Van Avermart 1996
Once a few members of the majority begin to move to the minority position, others quickly follow.
Who believes we are more likely to be influenced by a minority we perceive as bellonging to our in group
Social identity theory
Hogg & Vaughn 1998
What is social cryptomesia?
Mugny & Perez 1991
Whole cultures followed social change, failing of memory, usually referring to the mistaken belief that something the individual remembers us actually an original idea.
The ideas of a minority may be too radical when they are first aired, but as time goes by the rest of society catches up with them.
What was moscovici et al (1969) experiment?
To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a perception task.
Selected groups of 6 containing 4 naive participants and confederates.
The group were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue and were asked to name the colour in one condition….the confederates consistently said that all 36 slides were green
Just over 8% of participants agreed.
2) in the second condition, the confederates stated that 24 (of the 36) slides were green, only 1.26% of participants agreee that theese slides were green.
Study suggests that consistent minorities are more effective at influencing the majority.
Criticised for lacking ecological validity (since the participants are aware that they are being studied and the task is unlike any required in real life)
Moscovici (1980)
Minorities use informational social influence to persuade those in the majority to change their views.
Minorities want to bring about conversion.
They hope by focusing on the issue, the majority will come to examine the arguments passed by the minority
In turn, this may start the process of conversion,
Whereby, at least in private, attitudes genuinely begin to shift.
A consistent minority may plant the seed of doubt in the mind of someone holding a majority viewpoint, over time that doubt tends to a change of view, especially if other members of the majority are seen concerting to the minority view.
Evaluation of minority influence
Most of the research on minority influence is based on lavatory experiments which doesn’t reflect the conditions under which real minorities operate,
Most minorities have a lower social status than the majority (Sampson 1991)
In the real world, it is unlikely that minorities succeed simply because they are consistent, flexible or willing to compromise. More often their success results from massive protests, such as the civil rights demonstrations by African Americans in the 1950s and the uprising in eastern epitope which overthrew communist rule in 1989.
Sampson believes that we should not ignore laboratory findings on minority influence but reminds us that we need to see the broader social contexts in which minorities operate.
Evaluation of resisting unwanted influences
Milgram and zimbardo studies showed us that ordinary people put under pressure to obey an authoritative figure or placed in powerful positions without structural constraints l, could commit evil acts.
To reduce the likelihood of such behaviour, there is a need for all of us to be aware of the circumstances that can lead to blind obedience or a failure to emphasise with the suffering of others.
