Social Influence

Example of Social Norm Interventions

- 'Most of us' don't drink and drive campaign in Montana, USA - Posters and other media based messages were widely shown displaying information such as '4/5 of us don't drink and drive' in an attempt to reduce drink driving by making it a perceived social norm to no drink and drive - Drink driving was reduced by 13.7% -Led to positive changes in personal attitudes among target pop and reduction in their reported frequency of risky behaviours

Drift-Obedience

Disobedient models make change more likely and gradual commitment leads to 'drift' (once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one- people drift into a new kind of behaviour).

What kind of LOC is more likely to resist social influence?

Internal

Internalisation

TRUE CONFORMITY Public and private acceptance of majority influence, through adoption of the majority group's belief system. This occurs when individuals genuinely adjust themselves and decide that the group's beliefs are what they truly feel are correct- leads to a permanent change in behaviour and attitudes long term. They go through a validation process which makes them examine their own beliefs and causes this change. -eg-influences by religious beliefs so you convert to that new faith- your new religious life would still continue without the presence of the group.

What is Internalisation also known as?

TRUE CONFORMITY

Social Support

The perception that an individual has assistance available from other people, and that they are part of a supportive network. SITUATIONAL EXPLANATION

Situational Factors

The presence of others who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These dissenters act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

Conformity

- A form of social influence that results from exposure to the majority position leading to compliance with that position - Based on Asch- individual and group- yielding to group pressure - People adopt the behaviours, values and attitudes of other people

Types of Conformity

- Compliance - Internalisation - Identificaton

How do binding factors keep one in an agentic state?

- Factors such as social etiquette influence/regulate our behaviour in certain situations -In order to break off experiment- would have to breach the commitment made to the experimenter- fear that that is arrogant and rude for disobeying therefore our emotions bind us to the orders of an authority and we obey through an agentic state

How do institutions affect obedience?

- If an authority figure's commands are harmful, then for them to be perceived as legitimate they must come from an institution e.g. Nazi's during holocaust were committing shocking acts but many defended themselves by saying they were following orders of higher military figures -Does not have to be particularly reputable or distinguished

How does task difficulty affect conformity?

- If the lines were made more similar to the stimulus line and each other, the correct answer was less obvious so conformity increased -Individuals look to others for guidance as to what correct response is in the ambiguous situation- ISI is dominant force.

How do individuals accept definitions of situations from the person of legitimate authority?

- If the perceived authority figure explains a situation in a certain way we will accept. The experimenter, to whom the p feels commitment, orders them to continue, reassuring them - E.g if confederate in white coat says the learner is 'fine' and 'ok' then the participants are more likely to carry on as they have accepted this assurance (definition) from the legitimate authority

Explanations for Conformity

- Normative social influence - Informational social influence

How does unanimity affect conformity?

- When the participant was given the support of another real participant or a confederate instructed to give the correct answer, then conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5% -Having a dissenter enabled the naive participant to behave more independently

Research support for Informational Social Influence

- Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found that participants exposed to negative information about african americans later reported more negative views of a black individual showing evidence that people conform in order to seem right -Asch found that when task difficulty was increased, the stimulus line made more similar to others, the p's were more likely to conform and look to others for guidance, some did say that they actually internalized the answers and believed they were correct- informational factors at influence here

What was the procedure of Asch's study?

-123 male undergraduates were tested -They were told it was a study on perception -Placed in groups of 7-9 and seated around a table -All but one of the participants were confederates -Task was to say which of three parallel lines (A,B,C) was the same as the stimulus line -18 DIFFERENT TRAILS -6 of these trials were there to lower demand characteristics of p's guessing the aim of the study -Obvious solutions, on 12 of the 18 trials, confederates were told to give identical wrong answers and real participant always answered last or last but one

What was the procedure of Milgram's study?

-40 American Males aged 20-30 responded to a newspaper advert to volunteer for a memory study in Yale University Psychology Department -There were 2 experimental confederates- the authority figure/experimenter and a man 'Mr Wallace' who was introduced as another volunteer participant- later be the learner -The two p's drew straws for who would be the teacher and the learner, but it was rigged so the real p was always the teacher -The teacher was required to test the learner on ability to remember word pairs -Every time the answer was wrong, the teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks on a machine which increased in increments of 15 volts -At 15v there was a label stating 'slight shock' and at 450 volts it was 'XXX' -The learner was sat in another room and gave mostly wrong answers and received fake shocks -At 150 volts 'Mr Wallace' would protest and demand to be released and this would get more and more insistent until 300 volts where he refused to answer any more questions. At 315 volts he screamed loudly and at 330 volts was heard no more -If there was any reluctance from the teacher, the experimenter would say a series of prods to repeat. PROD 1= 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' PROD 2= 'The experiment requires that you continue' PROD 3= 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' PROD 4= 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

What were the results of Asch's study?

-75% of participants conformed at least once to the wrong answer -25% never conformed- remained completely independent -5% of participants conformed on all 12 critical trials- most conformist -33% average conformity rate- the general average based on every time went round the table on 12 critical trials (this was 1% without confederates) -Error Rate of control group was 0.04%

What is the Agentic State?

-A person sees his or herself as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes. It is a state of mind where responsibility is switched and attributed to someone else-the authority figure- an individual then obeys an order, even if they believe it to be wrong because they are not liable for the outcome. AUTONOMOUS-> AGENTIC DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

What are the positive aspects of Minority Influence?

-A strength of minority influence is there is convincing research to support the theory. Moscovici's study found that when the minority group were consistent, the agreement rate was approximately 8% whereas when they were inconsistent it was only 1.25% agreement which is significantly lower. This implies, that even if minority influence is relatively small, a very important variable is consistency. ->HOWEVER, research such as Moscovici's can be criticised as the study was a lab experiment, which lacks ecological validity. This is an issue because it limits the extent to which the study is reflective and applicable to real life as the task and setting may be considered as artificial (critics have suggested that getting people to persuade others that blue is green is not really something that would happen in everyday life)- conducted in a lab-based environment where agreement on colours of slides was measured- this is not an experiment which would happy in everyday life. ->However, Moscovici's research may also be criticised due to its gynocentricity with only female participants who are not completely reflective of the target population. Female biast as the researcher thought females would be more interested in colour- lacks generalisability to males- generally, research has shown that females are more conformist- only tells us about the behaviour of female students- there may be a BETA BIAS UNDERESEARCHED- differences in the way that men and women respond to minority influence. -One strength is the practical Applications of this theory. An example of minority influencing a majority was the suffragette movement in the early years of the 20th century. A relatively small group of suffragettes argued strongly for the initially unpopular view that women should be allowed to vote. The hard work of the suffragettes, combined with the justice of their case, finally led the majority to accept their point of view. This means that the minority influence has been useful to society because it has allowed these positive changes to occur through the augmentation principle and snowball effect. ->Usefulness- consistent minorities have a greater influence over private attitudes- make positive improvements and open people's views up to other viewpoints- this is helpful to minority groups and increases their chances of success. DISSENT IN THE FORM OF MINORITY OPINION 'OPENS' THE MIND- exposure to minority position, as a result people search for info, make better decisions, and are more creative. Dissenters liberate people to say what they believe- stimulate divergent, creative thought even when they are wrong. Research has even supported this in studying the role of dissent in work groups, finding that groups had improved decision quality when exposed to minority perspective. HOWEVER- SEE NEGATIVES -MOSCOVICI'S VARIATION- research supports the involvement of internalisation in minority influence. In variation, asked p's to write their responses down so their responses were private. Agreement with the minority was greater. This shows that internalisation took place. Members of the majority had been reluctant to admit their conversion publically. This shows people may be influenced by a minority but don't admit it, therefore the effect of the minority is not apparent. -Extension of Moscovici's research- For example Nemeth (1986) refutes. The experiment was based on a mock jury in which groups of three participants and one confederate had to decide on the amount of compensation to be given to the victim of a ski-lift accident. When the consistent minority (the confederate) argued for a very low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. However, when he compromised (thus showed some degree of shift towards the majority), the majority also compromised and changed their view- he did exert influence on the rest of the group. However, influence was only evident in those who shifted late in negotiations (showing flexibility) rather than those who shifted earlier (perceived as having 'caved in' to the majority). This suggests that in fact flexibility is only effective at changing majority opinion in certain circumstances.

What are the positive aspects of the LOC explanation for resistance to social influence?

-A strength of the Internal Locus of Control (ILoC) explanation for why people conform is that there is research to support the explanation. There is more convincing supporting evidence that having an internal LoC encourages independent behaviour, Spector investigated locus of control and conformity in 157 students, and found that those who score higher on external LoC were more easily persuaded and likely to conform in situations that produced normative social influence. This means the more INTERNAL your LoC the easier it is to resist social influence as people are less influenced by people and events around them thus, increasing the validity of the explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance -In addition, the ILoC explanation of resisting social influence may be a more comprehensive explanation as there may be Alternative explanations for RSI which may be deemed as a weaker explanations. For example social support may be considered to be a theory which lacks validity, as 15% of people still obeyed in Milgram's study where 2 other Pt's refused to obey and this shows that there must be differences between these participants which makes them more susceptible to obeying authority and respecting authority. This explanation of resistance is therefore not applicable to everyone, whilst locus of control takes account of these individual differences in terms of personality and has a wealth of convincing research support to back it up. This is a strength of ILoC as an explanation for RSI because there is little criticism for Rotter's theory- as there hasn't been any disproving evidence and evidence found from other theories seems to be flawed in its generalisability -> Research Support- meta-analysis research on studies of the relationship between locus of control and different forms of social influence, including conformity. This showed a significant positive correlation for the relationship between scores of internality/externality and scored on measures of persuasion, social influence and conformity. The analysis showed that individuals who scored higher on external locus of control tend to be more easily persuaded, more easily influenced and more conforming than those who score as internal in terms of locus of control. -The ILoC explanation can be seen to have many Applications. For example it is useful to know why people are more obedient and conform and more about it for reasons such as selection from the armed forces where you need to entirely obey your commander without distraction of your own cognition and internal control. This means that the explanation has been useful to society because i5n identifying the individuals who have external LOC, it may filter out who is most suited to the army to ensure that these individuals will obey. -Moreover- other practical applications include therapy for those who are experiencing irrational thoughts and beliefs and are struggling with their mental health. Indeed, research has found that people are most happy and at less of a risk of depression if they feel in control of their lives. Thus, individuals who have external LOC may benefit from therapy if they struggling, to move them to a more internal LOC- eg exam stress- it is in your control- convincing them and belief in themself so they can make the outcome of their own future and subsequently feel more in control of it. This may involve CBT. - Overall, for a more comprehensive explanation of RSI we must consider how both situational and dispositional explanations may interact, this is called the interactionist approach. From our work with social influence and independent behaviour attempt to explain how people with or without certain characteristics respond to key situational issues and act independently

What are the positive aspects of the dispositional explanation?

-A strength of the authoritarian explanation for obedience would be that there is significant research to support the link between the two. Elms and Milgram, in the follow up study, found that there was a positive correlation in the obedient participants who shocked the learner up to the full voltage and authoritarian tendencies revealed in the F Scale. Thus, this research is consistent with the dispositional explanation and may be seen as credible and valid as a result. HOWEVER, this research is simply a correlation and one cannot infer cause and effect, thus, there may be other factors (such as less educated people are more authoritarian) which may be influencing the level of obedience in an individual- such as situational. Therefore, it is also not plausible to claim that harsh parenting caused development of Authoritarian personality. -Practical Applications of explanation- with the convincing research into this area, it provides us with a deeper understanding of what caused horrific events of the past, such as the Holocaust and My Lai Massacre, thus, we may prevent this happening again by understanding the importance of beliefs and personality on behaviour and treatment of others. Thus, this explanation is useful to society. HOWEVER, it is unlikely that millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour as a result of the same personality type. Therefore, it may be questionable how far the authoritarian explanation goes in relation to the influence it has on obedience. As perhaps situational factors play a more significant and influential role. THE F SCALE CAN BE USED TO EVALUATE THE EXPLANATION - IS THE F SCALE POLITICALLY BIAST?

What are the explanations for obedience?

-DISPOSITIONAL= The Authoritarian Personality -The Agentic State -Legitimacy of Authority (These are both situational +psychological)

Cognitive Dissonance

An unpleasant state that arises when a person recognizes the inconsistency of his or her actions, attitudes, or beliefs- unpleasant mental experience that Asch would have created.

What are the negative application aspects of Milgram's experiment?

-Androcentric-the sample was not representative of women, thus, instigating questions as to whether the findings should be generalised to women. Ignores the importance of individual differences- it is argued that women are more susceptible to social influence than men- thus these gender differences were not taken into account. Milgram did do one condition for females and the self-reported tension in females was significantly higher than males at max shock level -Self-selected sample- may have a typical 'volunteer' personality- certain personality type that is not representative This means the study is limited in how far it can be used to explain obedience as the findings cannot be generalised -Low ecological validity- study took place in a lab- artificial environment-must also be careful when generalising, very rarely on a daily basis would we be forced to obey orders to administer electric shocks -Ethical Guidelines were breached- Protection of Participants from Harm- believed they were shocking a real person and suffered distress from this- feeling as if they were a horrible person- visible psychological distress- signs of tension. ! person had a Grand Mal seizure which is particularly dangerous and life threatening. However- Milgram argued they were debriefed (assured their behaviour was normal and common) and stress levels decreased and only short term as he interviewed the participants one year after the event and most were happy that they had taken part -> also right to withdraw was breached due to the experimenter prods which stated that the p 'had no choice but to continue'- this right was partially implicated in this way -Lack temporal validity- conducted a long time ago- may be tempted to dismiss this experiment as took place 50 years ago and perhaps the same thing would not happen today- may not apply as much today. -May have lacked internal validity- demand characteristics- p's may have guessed the true purpose of the study as learnt to distrust experimenters- in the study when the learner cried out in pain, the experimenter remained cool and distant- this may have led the p to thinking the 'victim' could not really be suffering any real harm- not realistic and just going along with experimenter-HOWEVER- when Milgram interviewed the participants, they said they thought that the study was real and this is supported by the stress they showed- so potentially did show high levels of mundane realism

What was the method and findings of the BBC- Haslam and Reicher alternative research?

-BBC prison study- 15 male volunteers were matched on social variables and were chosen randomly to be guards and prisoners -Initially did conform to roles but by the end wanted equality inside the mock prison - The study ran for 8 days, didn't conform automatically. -Guards felt reluctant to impose authority on the prisoners, which led to a collapse of the prisoner/guard system- the guards were very disjointed in their power- inconsistent with their social role -Prisoners rose up, people share common identity- leads to shared values and goals work together as a unit and did not conform blindly- UNITY was more crucial here than social roles

How can majority influence create social change?

-Behavioural choices related to GROUP NORMS- subjected to normative influence -If people perceive something to be the norm, they alter their behaviour to fit that norm, e.g. if students perceive heavily drinking alcohol to be the norm they may drink more alcohol -Behaviour is therefore based more on what people THINK others believe and do (THE PERCEIVED NORM) than on their real beliefs and actions (THE ACTUAL NORM). -The gap between the perceived and actual norm is referred to as 'misperception' and correcting this misperception is the basis for an approach to social change known as 'social norms interventions'

What are the negative application aspects of Asch's study?

-CERTAINLY NOT THE MAJORITY= 25% even remained entirely independent -Androcentric- the sample consisted only of male undergraduates, therefore is not representative of women. In Mori and Arai's study, women were found to conform more than men, therefore it lacks generalisability to a variety of demographics in the population due to this- lacks population validity -Lacks temporal validity as it was conducted in the 1950'- McCarthyism in 1950s America may have led more people to conform out of fear of being perceived as a communist (was a very conservative time) so conformity to American values were expected, meaning the study lacks historical validity. (confirmed by Perrin and Spencer in study repeat in 1980- much lower conformity rates). Modern day replications have also found that people are much less likely to conform -Ethnocentric- culturally biased as all American- 'individualist culture' (people concerned with themselves than social group). Conformity rates possibly higher in collectivist cultures. Therefore lacks generalisability to all cultures. -Lacks mundane realism and ecological validity- artificial task of judging line lengths. Not often faced with making a judgement like this where the answer is plain to see, results cannot be generalised to real-life situations of conformity. Asch replied that he wanted to investigate a situation where the participants could be in no doubt what the correct answer was. In so doing he could explore the true limits of social influence. -Uneconomical and time consuming- only one p tested at a time -Ethical Issues-p's were not protected from psychological stress and embarrassment in this conflicting situation of whether to report what they saw or conform to the opinion of others. Also deceived the student volunteers claiming they were taking part in a vision test and unaware of the true aim of the experiment so Asch did not get fully informed consent from the male participants- however deception was necessary to produce valid results. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE due to deceit. HOWEVER= may be argued that the end justifies the means.

What is a key positive for NSI and ISI?

-Can alter people's behaviour such as saving the environment if a 'majority of people do it' on signs and stopping teenagers smoking

What are the factors which affect minority influence?

-Commitment -Flexibility -Consistency

What are the positives of the variations of Milgram's experiment?

-Control of variables- systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience- other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 participants. This control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulation- showing the cause and effect relationship

What were the results of Milgram's study?

-Every single participants administered shocks to 300 volts which is a potentially deadly amount -5 stopped at 300 volts- the point at which the learner first objected -65% continued all the way to 450 volts despite the shock machine being labelled 'XXX' and 'Danger- Severe Shock' at 420 volts -Many p's showed signs of extreme tension- sweat, trembling, digging fingers into hands, nervous laughter and had wanted to leave -Also hesitated when pressing switches -35% regarded as 'disobedient' regardless of whether they stopped at 300v or 435 v

What were the variations of Asch's study?

-Group Size -Unanimity -Task Difficulty

What are the positive aspects of Asch's investigation?

-High Internal Validity- lab experiments with 18 trials and high levels of control and standardised procedure so cause and effect explanation of conformity can be found- that is to see whether other peoples answers would influence participant and change their answer to conform. This means the study was accurately measuring conformity and the study has higher explanatory power -High reliability because it had standardised procedures- eg all participants sat around a table and the naive participant gave their answer second to last or last so heard others give the wrong answer on 12 of the trials, this means that the study can be checked for consistency if repeated resulting in higher reliability -Application to real life-due to the findings of the line conformity test, jurors are now warned about conformity during their briefing so they do not feel excessive pressure by other juror members to provide a specific viewpoint. This means that Asch has benefitted the justice system in this way and improved the way in which people are convicted -PARADIGM- iconic piece of research that has been copied across the world and has triggered research in other areas. It has been copied again and again.

What are the positive aspects of Zimbardo's research?

-High Internal Validity- only emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly assigned the roles of prisoner or guard- randomly by chance so their behaviours were more likely to be due to the pressures of the situation and not their personalities. This high level of control increases internal validity- more confident in drawing conclusions about the influences of social roles on behaviour- cause and effect! -Mundane Realism- did seem to have this as Zimbardo went to great lengths in order to make the study as true to real life as possible- with arrests at home. Therefore the results are more applicable to real life -Positive practical application- helped to shed more light of the nature of human conformity when given a specific role in society= therefore, authorities can keep a firmer and closer control on prison environments and those in positions of authority to ensure behaviour is not unacceptable. HOWEVER- Zimbardo thought it would drastically improve prison systems when in fact it didn't- the impact was pretty limited and minimal- was not in fact a catalyst for change that Zimbardo wanted to materialise

What are the negative aspects of the dispositional explanation for obedience?

-However, the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience is limited to some extent as there are alternative explanations for obedience behaviour. For example, the situational explanation of the agentic state could be considered a better explanation for why people obey because it takes into account the impact of a switched state which the individual enters into, where they no longer feel personally responsible for their actions. This suggests that this explanation is incomplete on its own as it does not take into account this convincing factor. -Moreover, one theoretical problem with the authoritarian personality explanation is that the explanation could be considered Reductionist. As the explanation only considers dispositional factors that have contributed to why someone may obey, and ignores situational factors. For example, the perceived legitimacy of authority in the individual administering orders has been found to significantly influence whether an individual is likely to obey or not. Moreover, Milgram's variations in the social context of study- proximity, location etc were key causes in differences in p's obedience levels- not variations in personality. Thus, specific social situations cause obedient or resistant behaviour- relying on explanation purely based on authoritarianism lacks the flexibility to take into account for these variations. Thus, without this situational factor, an individual with an authoritarian personality may not obey, whereas they would if this variable was present. Thus, it seems to be a combination of factors which leads to obedience and the authoritarian explanation is reducing this complex behaviour down to biological/dispositional elements that are not solely responsible. -Issues with bias- the F Scale focuses on right wing authoritarianism but may also be extreme left wing such as Chinese Maoism which also insists on complete obedience. Thus, it is incomplete and fails to be a comprehensive explanation into obedience- POLITICALLY BIAST- as it does not explain this aspect of views and personality. Moreover, methodologically, researchers such as Elms and Milgram knew p's test scores when interviewed them and therefore there may be a risk of bias and flawed methodology which lead to scores which are not truly reflective of the individual, after all, the individuals took part in an initial test of personality called the MMPI scale and there was little difference between the defiant and obedient p's in this respect. Thus, the findings and study may be criticised for lacking validity in such a way. -Explanation cannot easily account for obedience in entire social groups/societies because, like in Milgram's study, the vast number of fully obedient participants are unlikely to all have had a strict family environment/harsh environment. There seem to be different characteristics in obedient p's and authoritarian p's as many fully obedient p's reported having a very good relationship with their parents. Applied to the wider world, many horrific events such as My Lai and the Holocaust, it is unlikely that all these people possessed personality so it is difficult to apply to them all. Perhaps, an alternative explanation is more realistic- social identity theory- most Germans identified with the anti-Semitic and adopted its views. -THE F SCALE CAN BE USED TO EVALUATE THE EXPLANATION - IS THE F SCALE POLITICALLY BIAST?

What are the negative aspects of Social Change Processes?

-However, there are methodological issues with this area of research, for example explanations of social change rely on the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram. These can be evaluated in terms of methodology, mainly over the artificial nature of the tasks and whether the group dynamics reflects real-life. These criticisms apply to the evaluation of explanations for the link between social influence processes and social change. This means that social change processes may be questioned of validity -The social norms approach have shown psotiive results in a variety of settings but they also have their limitations. Research has tested the effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to drive down alcohol use among students across 14 different US colleges- despite receiving normative influence that corrected misperceptions, students in the social norms condition did not report lower self-reported alcohol consumption as a result of campaign. It appears, therefore, that not all social norms interventions are able to produce social change. -Social change through minority influence is very gradual- The role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities such as the suffragettes rarely bring about social change quickly. Because there is a strong tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position, people are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change. This suggests that, therefore, the influence of a minority is frequency more latent than direct (it creates the potential for change rather than actual social change). Situational factors such as WW1 may have played a bigger role in sympathy towards women's position in society. -Minorities are often seen as deviant in the eyes of the majority meaning people may not align themselves with the majority to maintain a 'good self image'. This prevents the snowball effect from picking up. Being perceived as deviant also limits the influence of minorities. The potential for minorities to influence social change is often limited because they are seen as 'deviant' in the eyes of the majority. Members of the majority may avoid aligning themselves with the minority position because they do not want to be seen as deviant themselves. The message of the minority would then have very little impact because the focus of the majority's attention would be the source of the message (the deviant minority) rather than the message itself. In trying to bring about social change, therefore, minorities face the double challenge of avoiding being portrayed as deviants and also making people directly embrace their position. -The social norms and the 'boomerang effect'. Research has suggested an unwelcome problem with social norms interventions. Although they are typically aimed at individuals whose behaviour is less desirable than the norm, those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm will receive the same message. For those individuals who already engage in the constructive behaviour being advocated (drink less than the norm, use less energy than the norm and so on), a normative message can also be a spur to increasing these aspects of their behaviour to be more in line with the norm. This is referred by some researchers as the boomerang effect, where a social norms campaign might be effective in getting heavy energy users to use less electricity but can also cause those who use less than the norm to increase their usage.

What are the negative aspects of Minority Influence?

-However, there is Alternative research for the minority influence which suggests the process is a little more complex. Identification depends on the group. Maas found that when homosexual minority groups were fighting for homosexual rights this was not as effective as when heterosexual minorities groups were rallying for homosexual rights. This was due to the heterosexual majority identifying with the heterosexual minority group. This means there are other factors at work which influence the likelihood of a minority gaining influence, such as individual differences which interfere with identification. Therefore, minority groups perhaps need to have similarities to the majority in order for them to be identified with and for views to change. THE PERCEPTION OF THE MINORITY- more likely to take the views of a minority seriously and change their own views in line with those of the minority if the group are not so different from themselves- they tended to see the gay minority as different- self-interested, concerned with promoting their own particular cause. ->This suggests that being able to identify with a minority group is just as important as agreeing with their views in terms of changing behaviour. -Applications of minority influence may be seen as limited. Studies make a clear distinction between majority and minority but real-life situations may be more complicated than this. The difference is about more than just numbers. Majorities have power and status. Minorities are committed to tight-knit groups whose members know and support each other. Minority influence research rarely reflects the dynamics of these groups so findings may not apply to real-life minority influence situations which exert a more powerful influence. -However, one issue with the theory of minority influence is that the theory could be considered Reductionist. For example it simplifies the complex aspects of why people may change their views down to the aspects of the minority group. There may be personal history of faltering of the majority viewpoint, or many other aspects which interact in causing an individual to adapt their point of view and accepting the minority position. Family influences which lessens the likelihood of a conversion away from the majority. -Most of the research involving minority influence uses lab experiments to measure it. Is it possible to generalize from the findings of laboratory research to other settings? ARTIFICIAL TASKS- Moscovici's task involved identifying the colour of the slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in real life. In jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important, maybe a matter of life and death. Findings of studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-life situations. ->More often than not they are a collection of students who do not know each other and will probably never meet again. As such they are very different from minority groups in the wider society who seek to change majority opinion. ->For example, members of women's rights, members of pressure groups such as Greenpeace operate in different settings with different constraints. They often face much more determined opposition. They are committed to a cause; they often know each other, provide each other with considerable social support and sometimes devote their lives to changing the views of the majority. Power and status laboratory experiments are largely unable to represent and simulate the wide differences in power and status that often separate minorities and majorities. -HOWEVER- minority influence in name only? despite the evidence of higher quality decision-making, Nemeth claims that it is still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent. People accept the principle only on the surface ie they appear tolerant, but quickly become irritated by dissenting view that persists. They may also fear creating a lack of harmony within the group by welcoming dissent, or made to fear repercussions, including being ridiculed by being associated by a 'deviant' point of view. As a consequence, this means that the majority view persists and the opportunities for innovative thinking associated with minority influence are lost.

What was the aim of Milgram's experiment?

-To see how far people would comply/obey the order of an authority figure even if the consequences were fatal- unreasonable order -To test the 'Germans are different' hypothesis which claimed that Germans are highly obedient and that Hitler could not have exterminated the Jews and other minorities without their unquestioning cooperation

What is the key negative for both NSI and ISI?

-INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES- Asch found that some p's were less conformist than others, to do with their personality and how confident they feel- less likely to be influenced by the 'right' view of the majority- ISI -INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES- people who care more about being liked are more affected by NSI- people who have a greater need for social relationships= nAffiliators. More likely to conform to group pressure. Therefore, this desire underlies conformity for some more than others -BOTH COULD BE CONSIDERED REDUCTIONIST- fails to consider dispositional factors that could have contributed to conformity such as level of self-confidence. This model only focuses on situational factors and therefore simplifies the theory too much. Involves more complexity than these models describe

What have psychologists refined the concept of the Authoritarian personality to?

-Identifying three of the original personality variables that (Altemeyer) referred to as right wing authoritarianism. ->Conventionalism- an adherence to conventional norms and values ->Authoritarian Aggression- aggressive feelings towards people who violate these norms ->Authoritarian Submission- uncritical submission to legitimate authorities

What are the characteristics of Internal LOC individuals that make them more resistant to social influence?

-Individuals are active seekers of info that is useful to them so are less likely to rely on the opinion of others, making them less vulnerable to SI -Tend to be more achievement-orientated and consequently more likely to become leaders rather than follow others- eg Spector found a relationship exists between LOC and leadership style, with internals being more persuasive and goal orientated than externals -Better able to resist coercion from others- eg resist attempts of an interrogator to gain information -Greater independence and less reliance on the opinions of others - HIGHER ABILITY TO RESIST TO SOCIAL INFLUENCE

What are the limitations of Legitimacy of Authority explanation?

-It can be used for serving a basis for justifying the harm of others such as the My Lai massacre- if people authorise another person to make judgements for them about appropriate conduct, they no longer feel their own moral values are relevant to their conduct. As a consequence, when directed by legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral actions, people are alarmingly willing to do so. -Neither of these explanations include why individuals resist demands for obedience- there are alternative explanations for obedience, For example, the dispositional explanation of the authoritarian personality could be considered a better explanation for why people obey because it takes into account individual differences,this means that perhaps Legitimacy of authority etc is an incomplete explanation. REDUCTIONIST- fails to consider dispositional factors that may have contributed to why someone obeys-the explanations only focus on situational -Other factors also play a part in obedience such as situational factors

What are the limitations of the variations of Milgram's experiment?

-Lack internal validity- p's in variations even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation. The experimenter was even replaced by a member of the public and even Milgram recognised that this was contrived and demand characteristics are likely to be a issue. So it is unclear whether results are due to obedience or because the p's saw the deception and 'play acted' -Offers an obedience 'alibi' excuse for obedience suggesting it is the situation and not the person who is responsible for their actions- offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest Nazi's simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control- dangerous as it ignored the roles of discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the Holocaust

Research support for Normative Social Influence

-Linkenbach and Perkins (2003) found that if adolescents were exposed to the message that the majority of their peers didn't smoke then they were less likely to take up smoking showing evidence for NSI -Asch asked p's to explain why they agreed with the wrong answer and some said they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval- when asked to write answers conformity dropped by 12.5%- afterwards, the p's said they did not believe the answer was correct but had fear of being ridiculed- desire to be accepted with confeds

What are the limitations of the Agentic State explanation?

-Milgram said we switch between autonomous and agentic however this cannot account for the behaviour of the Nazi's, Men shot civilians in a small town in Poland in WW2, they did this even though they were not directly ordered to (they were told they could be assigned other duties). This challenges the explanation because these en were not powerless to disobey. fails to explain gradual and irreversible transitions- where good people were capable of the most evil actions over a long time- perhaps the experiences of these actions over a long time changes the way that individuals think and behave- higher levels fo cruelty causing the behaviour- like the guards in SPE.

Overview of the Role of Social Influence Processes in Social Change

-Minorities bring about social change by being consistent, flexible and committed. Through social crypto-amnesia and the snowball effect, gradually the minority turns to the majority -Governments/lawmakers can bring about social change through power and through the process of obedience -Normative Social Influence and Informational Social Influence -Processes may refer to insights gained through explanations, theories and studies- Moscovici- need to be used to effectively show how they have helped our understanding -Examples acceptable include changing attitudes in relation to 'green' issues such as recycling, the smoking ban, changing views of homosexuality, votes for women

What are the characteristics of External LOC individuals that make them more prone to social influence?

-More passive attitude, greater acceptance of influence of others -The belief that what happens to them is out of their control -Display less independent behaviour and take less responsibility for actions -MORE LIKELY TO BE SOCIALLY INFLUENCED

How do majority views form according to Moscovici?

-Moscovici argues it tends to be based on public compliance- normative social influence. In this respect, power of numbers is important - the majority have the power to reward and punish with approval and disapproval. And because of this there is pressure on minorities to conform. -Since majorities are often unconcerned about what minorities think about them, minority influence is rarely based on normative social influence. Instead, it is usually based on informational social influence - providing the majority with new ideas, new information which leads them to re-examine their views. In this respect, minority influence involves private acceptance (i.e. internalization)- converting the majority by convincing them that the minority's views are right.

Why do we adopt the Agentic State?

-Need to maintain positive self-image- when autonomous, would assess the consequences of this action on self-image and refrain. However, agentic state this process of thought is no longer relevant- the action is no longer their responsibility no longer reflects their self image- guilt free, obedience autopilot

What did the obedience figure decrease to when proximity was closer? (learner in the same room)

-Obedience levels fell as the teacher could experience the learner's pain more directly DOWN TO 40%

What are the negative aspects of LOC explanation for resistance to social influence?

-One theoretical problem with the ILoC explanation is that the explanation could be considered Reductionist. As the explanation only accounts for dispositional factors that have contributed to why someone may resist social influence, and ignores situational factors. For example the ILoC explanation only considers whether someone is high in internality, and whether they attribute events that happen to them to their own effort and ability. Rotter himself stated that LOC is only relatively stable and given a particular situation, an internal person may become more external and vice versa. Therefore, in failing to account for situational factors such as social support and the ally dissenter, the explanation may be seen to lack credibility as it seems unable to explain the findings supporting social support. ->Rotter also found that LOC is only important in new situations. It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important. This is often overlooked. It means people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high internal LOC. This is a limitation because it means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations. -Moreover, Spector's research utilised Rotters IE scale on university students and found that p's with high external locus of control did conform more than individuals high in internal LOC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure. Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produce informational social influence. This suggests that the situational factors play a key role in the likelihood of conformity to social influence and affect resistance. Indeed, it proposes that even those with a high external LOC and are likely to conform and not resist, didn't show a difference to internals in informational social influence. In this way, this research is limited in its applicability in all situations and may be seen to refute the dispositional explanation for resistance to social influence- externals do not ALWAYS conform more than internals. Thus, despite refuting evidence being rare, there is examples of research which refute the explanation and thus questions it's validity. ->Needs a more holistic explanation as Milgram's study clearly demonstrated the impact of social support- Where two other 'stooges' (confeds) were present, social influence was found to decrease significantly to only 15%- these two confederates stopped at 150v and the other at 200 v. This shows that 85% of these participants resisted social influence due to the social support in the situation and it is unlikely that these participants would have all had internal LOC's. In this way, this calls into question the dispositional explanation, as social support is a key factor at work here in the likelihood of disobedience. -Has been found to be cultural differences- with Japanese individuals conforming more than American- therefore research in this area may be ethnocentric and fails to take into account these differences between cultures -HOWEVER- for this research- this challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance, however the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside of personal control.

What are the positive aspects of Milgram's experiment?

-Practical Applications- provided an insight into human behaviour to help us understand how awful events occurred in history and, through understanding, potentially prevent our blind obedience in the future. Very useful when looking at behaviour in a society setting and understanding obedience on a wider level- can encourage obedience that has positive results -Milgram's findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures and most lead to the same conclusions as Milgram's original study. In some cases, obedience rates are seen to be even higher, particularly in western societies- Spain 90% obedience.- However we should be careful when drawing conclusions for a universal trait of social behaviour as most have been conducted in western societies ->Milgram went on to do many variations to find out more about the mechanisms of obedience- 19 further studies -High Reliability- lab experiment due to the following variations (no IV so would otherwise be controlled observation)- other people would be able to replicate the study so easy to see how the findings compare. It involved clear standardised procedure, such as 4 prods which were given in the same manner beginning with 'Please continue' to 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

What were the findings of Zimbardo's study?

-Prisoners and guards settled into their roles within 24 hours-with the guards taunting and humiliating the prisoners and becoming increasingly more sadistic as it reached 2 days in- awaking the prisoners in the middle of the night to clean toilets with their bare hands and made them carry out other degrading activities -Prisoners were passive, submissive and unquestioning- some even sided with the guards against the disobedient prisoners (solitary confinement of a prisoner who rebelled and some felt he deserved it)- deindividualisation was noticable- with prisoners referring to themselves and others by numbers -Most appeared to forget that it was only a study, even when aware of being watched- still conformed. -5 released early due to extreme reactions (crying, rage, anxiety) after just 2 days -Only 10% of the time were conversations between prisoners and guards about life outside prison life- guards often talking about problem prisoners etc -One prisoner asked for parole -The study was terminated after 6 days- due to the intervention of postgrad Maslach

What are the situational variables affecting obedience?

-Proximity -Location -Uniform

Identification

-Public and sometimes private acceptance in order to be associated with a particular person or group- membership is desirable. -Adopting a change in attitude and behaviour to make them feel more a part of it -Contains internalisation and compliance-as the individual usually accepts that the behaviours they are adopting are true however also contains compliance as the purpose of adopting these behaviours is to be accepted by another group. ----This is normally long term however it may not be maintained on leaving the group and ISI -e.g-In the army, may adopt the behaviour and belief of the fellow soldiers, but on leaving and returning to civil life new behaviours and opinions are adopted.

What are the negative aspects of Zimbardo's research?

-Replication studies subsequently, refute Zimbardo- such as the Reicher and Haslam BBC prison study conducted- found that p's did not conform automatically to their assigned role, prisoners identified as a group and worked collectively together to challenge the authority of the guards and establish a more egalitarian set of social relations- with guards being reluctant to impose authority. Thus, perhaps Zimbardo's drawn conclusion was inaccurate as this may be due to social identity theory, with guards failing to identify with their role. -The participants were paid and this may have acted as an incentive to commit actions and behaviours which are thought to be desired by the investigators- indeed, one participant actually said that they believed they wanted them to behave like guards (see video) so felt obliged to do what they needed to do -ATTRITION- LINK TO ETHICS- CRITICISED FOR THE ATTRITION RATE - after 6 days it was stopped and the governing body had to implement ethical guidelines in response -Individual differences- some guards were quite reluctant to enforce orders and despite being given a social role, did not in fact conform to it. Therefore, if conformity was merely situational, wouldn't everyone have behaved the same? Questions the validity of the study -Generalisability considered low due to Unrepresentative sample- Androcentric and ethocentric- only American male university students- therefore may not be generalizable to the whole population, lacks population validity. Findings cannot be applied to female prisoners or those from other countries. America individualist culture (people generally less conforming) and results may be different for collectivist cultures (such as Asian cultures) and lacks temporal validity as was done in 1973 -Breach of Ethical Guidelines- protection of participants from harm was not adhered to, with psychological and physical harm was experienced by participants. 5 p's released early (2 days) due to extreme reactions of crying, hysteria and anxiety. Moreover, right to withdraw was also compromised through Zimbardo becoming both the Prison Superintendent and the researcher, in response to a prisoners request to leave, Zimbardo spoke as superintendent, worried about the running of his prison- conflicting role lead p's to feel unable to withdraw and leave. Didn't obtain fully informed consent, prisoners arrested at their homes- reported embarrassment from neighbours, family and friends who witnessed the 'fake arrest'. However Zimbardo did debrief afterwards. BPS GUIDELINES. -Demand characteristics may have caused the findings of the experiment. One of Zimbardo's guards in the post study interview, said that he thought the experiment was about the awful conditions in prisons so he wanted to strengthen this- social desirability effect- and some said they were simply acting. Therefore the results may not be completely valid due to some guessing what the study was about. However, many of the guards didn't realize they were capable of such actions they committed in that environment- which shows that they were unaware of the aim but became completely immersed in their social role. Also, many felt it was real as it was found that 90% of private conversations that were had were about the prison environment

What is the evidence of the Agentic State?

-When participants in Milgram's study were reminded that the responsibility was theirs, almost all were unprepared to obey -In My Lai, Vietnam, 500 innocent villagers were killed by American soldiers who claimed they were following orders of superior figures

What are the positive aspects of both explanations- LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY + AGENTIC STATE?

-Research supports both explanations- Agentic state- Milgram found that in interviews, the p's were asked why they continued to administer electric shocks and the typical response was 'I wouldn't have done it myself. I was just doing what I was told'. Therefore the individual feels responsible to the authority directing but feels no responsibility to the actions the authority dictates. --Also research for legitimacy of authority- institution provides a significant change Positive practical applications to society-being aware that we are capable of obeying in this way could help us to explain and prevent horrific actions such as My Lai massacre from happening again. This means that the explanations are useful to society as it is more widely understood that we shift to an agentic state etc. -Legitimacy of authority is useful to account for cultural differences in obedience- countries differ in obedience to authority, 85% of Germans went to top voltage whereas only 16% of Australians did. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures and this reflects how different societies are structured, and children raised to perceived authority figures. Supportive findings in cross-cultural research increases the validity of the explanation.

What are the positive aspects of Social Support?

-Research to support for this explanation for why people resist social influence-Asch studied the variation of unanimity, the introduction of an ally who gave the right answer caused conformity levels to drop sharply- a reduction from 33% to just 5.5%. This breaks the unanimous position of the majority. Moreover, Milgram further backed this up, through his Disobedient Stooges Variation study which found the presence of these confeds as reducing obedient from 65% to 15% to 450 volts -One strength is the practical applications of this explanation.- useful for society. Research has found that social support provided by friends helped adolescents resist conformity pressures from the majority. Individuals with a majority of friends who drank alcohol were significantly more likely to have engaged in drunkenness and binge drinking over the previous 12 months. However, it was found that individuals were able to resist pressures to drink alcohol when they had a friend or two who also resisted. Therefore, this provides practical applications of encouraging and increasing levels of social support in efforts to decrease the likelihood of problem behaviours- even when faced with conformity pressures of a drinking majority. -Social support has been seen in the real world- the Rosenstrasse protest which is a stark illustration of Milgram's research in real life. In 1943, a group of German women protested in Rosenstrasse in Berlin, where the Gestapo (Nazi Secret Police) were holding 2000 Jewish men, most of whom were married to non-Jewish partners and were the male children of these mixed marriages. Despite the Gestapo threatening to open fire on them, the women's courage eventually prevailed and the Jews were set free. Milgram found that the presence of disobedient peers gave confidence and courage to resist authority orders- likewise, these women defied the authority together- with collective action of their peers

SOCIAL CHANGE- SOCIOCRYPTO AMNESIA AND AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

-SOCIOCRYPTO AMNESIA- we forget the steps it took to get to social change but just remember when the change happened eg banned phones from cars -Augmentation principle- in a minority, there will always be a small number of people within willing to take greater risks -Eating heathily- NHS costs go down and obesity is the number 1 killer in the UK so saving money through psychological and social change processes

What are the explanations of resistance to social influence?

-Situational Factors- eg social support -Dispositional Factors- eg LOC

How does Social Support allow us to resist social influence?

-Situations where you have social support from another NON-CONFORMIST promoting RSI. When a minority is given an ally who also disagrees with the majority they are more likely to resist social influence because they are more confident in expressing their own views. For example, when Asch studied the variation of unanimity, the introduction of an ally who gave the right answer caused conformity levels to drop sharply- a reduction from 33% to just 5.5%. This breaks the unanimous position of the majority. Supporters and dissenters are likely to be effective in reducing conformity as breaking position of majority- raise the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate ways of thinking or responding. Ally provides the individual with an independent assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident in their decision and better able to stand up to scrutiny. -Situations where you have social support from another DISOBEDIENT person also promotes RSI. This is because individuals will be more confident about disobeying when they are not alone. It is often difficult to take a stand against authority as obedient behaviour of others makes even a harmful action appear acceptable- disobedience can change that perception. Disobedient peers act as role models on which the individual can model their own behaviour- use the defiance of peers as an opportunity to extricate themselves from having to cause any further harm to a victim as a result of their obedience. When in a team of 3 in one of Milgram's variation studies- 2 confeds refused to continue shocking and withdrew. Their defiance had liberating influence and only 10% continued to max 450 volt shock level. ->Milgram's Disobedient Stooge Variation- 80 male Pps ages 20 - 50. Matched for age and occupation from the original 1963 study. Original study (1963) acted as a control group P's split into two conditions 1) The Overly Obedient Stooges Condition- went in with 2 other stooges and both went all the way to 450 volts, not protesting but making mild comments when learner expressed pain 2) Disobedient Stooges- 2 others (confeds) of whom, one refused to go past 150 volts and the other stopped at 200 volts Baseline Condition = 65% shocked to 450 volts Rebellious Stooge Condition = 6/40-15% shocked to 450 volts Obedient Stooge Condition = 29/40- 72.5% went to 450 volts Thus, the presence of rebellious stooges reduced obedience, as the participant felt able to refuse orders once the others had done so.

What was the procedure of Zimbardo's study?

-Stanford University basement was converted into a mock prison -Zimbardo was the prison superintendent -24 male undergraduates who responded to a newspaper advert and they were picked through screening, rated the most stable (free from anti-social and criminal tendencies) -Randomly assigned either prisoner or guard -The prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home, finger printed, stripped, deloused and given a prison uniform with a id number attached- dehumanisation (removed all individual identity)- with nylon caps etc -They were allowed certain rights, such as 3 meals a day, three supervised toilet trips and 2 visits a week -Prisoners were placed 3 in cell with and regular routine of mealtimes etc -The guards were welcomed to the prison given a khaki uniform with reflective sunglasses (to prevent eye contact), clubs and whistles and were told that they had full control over the prisoners, for example had control over when they went to the toilet, but could not be physically violent -Research was planned to last 2 weeks

What is the difference between obedience and minority influence?

-TIME DIFFERENCES- minority influence has progressive impact over time- through conversion, whereas obedience occurs immediately. -Majority influence stops the social change so minority takes time to develop

What is Commitment in Minority influence?

-The degree to which members of a minority are dedicated to a particular cause or activity. The greater the perceived commitment, the greater the influence. Difficult to dismiss minority when it adopts UNCOMPROMISING-suggests certainty, confidence, and courage in the face of a hostile majority. Joining minority has a greater cost to the individual- degree of commitment is typically greater - which in turn persuades the majority group members to take them seriously- or even convert to the minority position. -Reliable and have resisted social pressures - allows doubt and gets individuals to reexamine their own beliefs and behaviour HELPS TO GAIN ATTENTION THROUGH EXTREME ACTIVITIES- LEADS TO AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

What are the negative aspects of Social Support?

-The social support explanation of resisting social influence may be incomplete as there may be Alternative explanations for RSI, which may be deemed as a better explanation for RSI. A more comprehensive explanation may suggest that in certain situations some people with specific personality characteristics (e.g. having an internal locus of control) are more likely to resist social influence than others when given an element of social support. This limits social support as an explanation as not all people resist conforming when there is social support, and therefore an internal locus of control can explain this as it may be down to characteristics within an individual. -The social support explanation can be seen as Reductionist. Despite some studies showing social support can affect resisting social influence, SOME PEOPLE STILL conform/obey, which means the explanation overlooks factors such as the Authoritarian personality. For example, 15% of people still obeyed in Milgram's study where 2 other Pt's refused to obey, this shows that there must be differences between these participants which makes them more susceptible to obeying authority and respecting authority. This explanation of resistance is therefore not applicable to everyone and is limited in its generalisation

What are the positive aspects of Social Change Processes?

-There is supporting Research for the assumptions of minority influence and social change. For example Moscovici's study can support the ideas of how social change comes about as in Moscovici's study the consistency condition had a higher percentage of conformity of 8.4% compared to the inconsistent condition of 1.3%. This implies that consistence from minority groups is an important part of a minority group moving to a majority group. This can therefore explain how minority groups bring about change on the real world. ->Research support got the role of normative social influence in social change- environmental and health campaigns exploit conforming, appealing to NSI. They provide information about what others are doing eg reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins. Social change is encourages by drawing attention to majority's behaviour. Research has found significant decreases in specific behaviour in comparison to a control group . So conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI. -Practical Applications- In communicating to the target population what is the actual norm concerning a particular behaviour, there is the correction of common misperceptions about the norm of driving after drinking, for example, and leads to positive changes in personal attitudes among the target population and a reduction in reported frequency of risky behaviours. ->Nelson Mandela's struggles, or Ghandi-History has provided many real life examples, where consistent individuals have challenged and questioned the values and norms of society (and have been criminalised for their views). Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela led civil rights movements and were consistent in their views against apartheid for many years, which helped bring about social change. This means that the explanation has been useful to society as it can successfully be applied to real life scenarios where minority positions have created social change. -One strength with the processes of social change are that they can be viewed as Holistic. The theory of processes of social change take into account a number of factors, for example it explains each specific step of minority influence - addresses the factors of the minority group which impact views but also what goes on cognitively in individuals- 'cognitive conflict' aspect. Can be applied to conformity and obedience research- Conformity- dissenters make social change more likely and NSI and obedience- disobedient models make change more likely and gradual commitment leads to 'drift' (once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one- people drift into a new kind of behaviour). -Identification- important variable overlooked in minority influence research. Research has shown that people are less likely to behave in a certain way due to avoid labels of being minority- eg 'environmentalists'- negative associations to some, 'tree-huggers'. Minorities wanting social change should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes- off-putting the majority. This suggests that being able to identify with a minority group is just as important as agreeing with their views in terms of changing behaviour.

What was the aim of Zimbardo's study?

-To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life. -Testing the dispositional vs situational hypothesis which saw prison violence as either due to the sadistic personalities of guards and prisoners, or the brutal conditions of the prison environment. Abu Ghraib-sexual abuse, rape, torture, and the potential to be murdered.

Research Examples of RSI

Asch- 25% never conformed Milgram- 1/3 stopped obeying between 300 and 450 volts

What are the five steps to converting a majority to create social change? (ACCAS)

1) Drawing attention to an issue- minorities can bring about social change by drawing the majority's attention to an issue. If their views are different to those held by the majority, this creates a conflict that they are motivated to reduce - the Suffragettes used educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to the fact that women were denied the same voting rights as men 2) Cognitive Conflict- The minority creates a conflict between what majority group members currently believe and the position advocated by the minority. Majority group members think more deeply about issues being challenged. The suffragettes did this between existing status quo (only men voting) with position of voted for women. Individuals may dismiss or move to towards their position. 3) Consistency of position- more influential when over time and with each other- in views, regardless of attitudes around them. Suffragettes did protests and political lobbying that continued for years- also played a key role in WW1 4) The augmentation principle- if a minority appears willing to suffer for their views, they are seen as more committed and so taken more seriously by others. Suffragettes willing to risk imprisonment or even death by hunger strike- their influence became more powerful 5) Snowball Effect/Socio-Crypto Amnesia- minority influence initially has relatively small effect but then spreads more widely as more and more people consider the issues being promoted- until reaches TIPPING POINT- wide scale social change. Eg Universal Suffrage (all adult citizens having the vote) accepted by the majority of people in the UK

How many explanations of conformity are there?

2

What did the obedience figure decrease to when the uniform was less smart?

20%- normal clothes

How many types of conformity are there?

3

What did the obedience figure decrease to when the location was less prestigious?

47.5%- Bridgeport,, Connecticut

Compliance

A change in external behaviour but not a private belief in order to achieve a favourable reaction from those around them. This is normally short term and NSI Publicly, but not privately, going along with majority influence to gain approval- gain a favourable reaction from those around them. Occurs when an individual adjusts behaviour and opinions to those of a group to be accepted and avoid disapproval. This does not last (short term) not permanent behaviour change and is superficial. Normative Social Influence -eg-You may claim to support a certain football team because others your age do and you want to be accepted and not ridiculed- however privately have little interest.

Minority Influence

A form of social influence where members of the majority group change their beliefs or behaviours as a result of their exposure to a persuasive minority. How a small group can impact a larger group- the aim is to become the majority- so the larger group eventually affiliate with the smaller group CREATES A CONVERSION PROCESS-whereby the minority create a consistent and committed approach- people scrutinize the message itself- understand why the minority has adopted that position- involves the new belief / behaviour being accepted both internally and externally and can be seen as a type of INTERNALISATION social influence, as it involves a change in an individual's belief system and as such is regarded as a strong form of conformity. DEEPER AND LONGER LASTING.

Locus of Control

A person's perception of personal control over their own behaviour. People differ in their beliefs about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal LOC) or on events outside of their personal control (external LOC) -Measured along a dimension of 'high internal' to 'low internal'- although most would be somewhere between the two extremes DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION

What is de-individualisation?

A state in which individuals have lower self-awareness and a weaker sense of personal responsibility for their actions. This may result from the relative anonymity of being part of a crowd.

Obedience

A type of social influence defined by complying with the demands of a figure with perceived authority. There is also the implication that the person receiving the order is made to respond in a way that they otherwise would not have done without the order.

What is Flexibility in Minority Influence?

A willingness to compromise when expressing a position. Shouldn't be rigid and uncompromising as beliefs and behaviour will not be persuasive. Need to moderate, cooperate and be reasonable- more likely to get people on their side. BALANCE OF CONSISTENCY & FLEXIBILITY- so they don't appear rigid- need to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments. ->Because minorities are typically powerless compared to the majority, they must negotiate their position rather than enforce it ->If rigid- the minority is at risk of being perceived as DOGMATIC (narrow-minded) and refusing to consider the other opinion might also be justified. ->Too flexible- risk of being seen as inconsistent.

Who went further after FROMM in the authoritarian explanation?

ADORNO- saw these individuals as having insecurities which lead them to be hostile to non-conventional people, having a belief in the need for toughness and power which leads them to being highly obedient to authority figures

What is the research conducted by MOSCOVICI et al 1969- Minority Influence?

AIM: To see whether a consistent minority of participants could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception test. Procedure: 172 female American Pt's in total were involved. All had good eyesight. Six participants at a time were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides, all the slides were blue, but of differing brightness. Two of the six Pt's were confederates of the experimenter. There were two conditions, the consistent condition: the two confederates called the slides green on all the trials; and the inconsistent condition: the two confederates called the slides green 24 times, and blue 12 times. There was a control group of no confederates to compare. Results: consistent condition = 8.4% conformity inconsistent condition = 1.3%.

How does upbringing play a part in the authoritarian personality?

Adorno saw the personality type described as being shaped in early childhood by hierarchical, authoritarian parenting. To measure this, used the F Scale. -Growing up within this particular social system, lead them to assume that this was the accepted norm and thus, with a strong emphasis on obedience, they then acquire these same authoritarian attitudes through the process of learning and imitation.

What does obedience involve?

An explicit command or order.

Social Norms Interventions

Attempt to correct misperceptions of the normative behaviour of peers in an attempt to change the risky behaviour of a target population. -Typically start by identifying a widespread misperception- eg young adults generally misperceive the frequency and quantity of alcohol typically consumed by their peers and as a result develop norms that justify their heavy drinking behaviour -Perception correction strategies can be used in media campaigns, promotional material and other routes -The aim of these strategies is to communicate to the target population what the actual norm is concerning particular behaviour -By advertising, researchers hope that recipients will moderate their own behaviour to bring it more in line with behaviour of peers

What type of conformity does NSI link to?

COMPLIANCE

Informational Social Influence

CORRECT. One explanation of conformity and is a motivational force to look to others for guidance in order to be correct. It is the basic need to feel confident in beliefs to help us feel in charge of our lives. When uncertain we look to others to help shape our own thoughts and behaviour in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations where there is not clear or correct answer. An individual conforms in order to gain a better view about reality. They go through a validation process in order to reassess their beliefs, if they believe the group are correct they take on behaviour. -Usually occurs when the task is ambiguous or unclear -Driven by cognitive factors, therefore leads to internalization- public and private Example= unsure where to put your bag on the first day of work so you follow your colleagues

What is the F Scale?

Californian F Scale- Adorno et al- was a Fascist Scale which measured different components which made up the authoritarian personality- traits and tendencies. -Consisted of closed questions Included statements such as 'Rules are there for people to follow, not change' Agreeing with the statements was indicative of the personality -People who scored highly on the scale tended to have been raised by parents who used the authoritarian parenting style (physical punishment). Positive correlation between them both.

What is the key difference between COMPLIANCE and CONVERSION?

Compliance= Compliance is common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform to the group norms but privately reject them. Conversion= Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility). Conversion is different to compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or behavior (i.e. internalization). This experiment questions the importance of consistency. The minority position changed, it was not consistent, and it was this change that apparently resulted in minority influence.

How does the minority influence the majority?

Consistent minority challenged beliefs leading to reappraisal= conversion

Conversion

Conversion involves the new belief / behaviour being accepted both internally and externally and can be seen as a type of internalisation social influence, as it involves a change in an individual's belief system and as such is regarded as a strong form of conformity. A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE

What is the key piece of research into the authoritarian personality?

Elms & Milgram- Actual submission to authority- whether p's high in authoritarianism are more likely to obey an authority figure. -Follow up study of one of Milgram's experiments and selected 20 obedient participants (those who continued to final shock level) compared to 20 defiant participants (those who had refused to continue at some point during the experiment) -Completed a MMPI scale measuring a range of personality variables and Californian F scale to specifically measure levels of auth -Also asked series of open ended q- relationship to parents during childhood, attitude to experimenter and learner -Researchers found little difference between the two sets of p's- in MMPI variables -HOWEVER, Found significant differences - higher levels of authoritarianism in those classified as obedient compared to defiant p's -Consistent with the idea of authoritarian personality- OBEDIENT- less close with their fathers - more likely to describe them in negative terms, saw experimenter as admirable and learner as less so- not the case for defiant p's

What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?

Explanations of behaviours such as obedience, that emphasise them being caused by an individual's own certain personal characteristics are associated with higher levels of obedience, rather than situational influences within an environment. THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY, including 'Might is Right', Upbringing, Personal Traits and the F Scale

What is the Authoritarian Personality?

FROMM- a collection of traits/dispositions developed from strict/rigid parenting, eg conformist/conventional/dogmatic • obedient/servile towards people of perceived higher status. -Rigid thinkers who obeyed authority and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies.

Who first proposed the authoritarian explanation of obedience- Might is Right best summarised?

FROMM- attempt to explain how those holding right wing, conservative views is a personality type characterised by a belief in absolute obedience, submission to authority and domination of minorities- MIGHT IS RIGHT

Situational Variables

Features of an environment that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures.

What type of conformity does ISI link to?

INTERNALISATION

How does drawing attention to an issue help a minority to inflict social change?

If the majority see's an issue that conflicts with their values, they will want to reduce this conflict

The Suffragettes

In late 19th and early 20th century Britain, members of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies campaigned for women's rights including the right to vote. The women were mostly middle class and educated so they were able to put forward a persuasive message. They showed commitment through their protests, in particular through their hunger strikes when imprisoned for their protests. In response the the hunger strikes, the government introduced the Cat and Mouse Act which meant that the women could be imprisoned until they had starved themselves long enough to be of concern to their health, at which point they were released and then reimprisoned once they had regained their strength, a process which was often repeated many times.

Externality- LOC

Individuals who tend to believe that their behaviour and experience is caused by events outside their control. -A strong external locus of control is associated with the belief that outside factors, such as the influence of others or luck determine what happens to them- out of their control -These individuals tend to approach events with a more passive and fatalistic attitude than internals, taking less personal responsibility for their actions and being less likely to display independent behaviour- and more likely to accept the influence of others -Down to fate, luck or another person

Internality- LOC

Individuals who tend to believe that they are responsible for their behaviour and experience rather than external forces. -A strong internal locus of control is associated with the belief that we control the events of our lives- what happens to them is largely a consequence of their own ability and effort -They are more likely to display independence in thought and behaviour -People high in internality rely less on the opinions of others, which means they are better able to resist social influence -Believe they are in control of the situation and more likely to be self-confident and perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey or not!

How does proximity affect obedience?

Involves how aware individuals are of the consequences of their actions in obeying authority figures. The closer the physical distance between the teacher and learner in Milgram study, p's were less able to divorce themselves from consequences of their actions & obedience rates were lower- 62.5%---> 40% Learner in same room= 40% obeyed fully P touching learner= 30% obeyed fully Experimenter gave orders over the phone, remote authority as absent experimenter- 21% fully obeyed Someone else gave the shock then 90% fully obeyed

Dispositional Factors

Is any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality ( i.e. their disposition)

What was the conclusion of Asch's study?

Judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions, even when the majority is obviously wrong. There were big individual differences in the amount to which people were affected -Post- experiment interview showed that most conformed publicly but not privately- Compliance and NSI

Normative Social Influence

LIKED, AVOID PUNISHMENTS. One explanation of conformity and is the motivational force to be liked and accepted by a group. They do not want to be rejected or ridiculed so the best way of gaining this is to agree with them, however this does not necessarily mean we truly agree with answers people give- we agree because of risk of being ridiculed. An individual conforms in order to avoid social disapproval. CONDITION- individual must believe they are under surveillance by the group -Driven by emotional factors so is COMPLIANCE/identification- adjust to fit in

How does location affect obedience?

Location of an environment can be relevant to the amount of perceived legitimate authority a person giving orders is seen to have. In a location that adds to the legitimate authority figure, obedience rates higher. Office block (run-down) dropped from 62.5%---> 47.5%.

Social Influence

Looks at how and why people are influenced by others, this includes groups of people (majority influence), individuals (minority influence), obedience , resistance to social influence and how social influence affects social change.

What social influence processes does minority influence involve compared to majority influence processes?

Majority= Tends to be based on COMPLIANCE and NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE Minority= Tends to be based on INTERNALISATION (re-examine beliefs) and INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

What was the conclusion drawn from Milgram's study?

Milgram concluded that participants would obey the orders of an authority figure despite the impact being fatal (to the extent of harming others), as participants gave electric shocks to a learner when told to do so.

What is the key difference between Zimbardo's experiment and Milgram's?

Milgram studied the influence of an authority figure on a person's behaviour whereas, Zimbardo's aim was to observe the interaction between two groups in the absence of an authority figure.

What is Milgram's Disobedient Stooge Variation Study?

Milgram's Disobedient Stooge Variation- 80 male Pps ages 20 - 50. Matched for age and occupation from the original 1963 study. Original study (1963) acted as a control group P's split into two conditions 1) The Overly Obedient Stooges Condition- went in with 2 other stooges and both went all the way to 450 volts, not protesting but making mild comments when learner expressed pain 2) Disobedient Stooges- 2 others (confeds) of whom, one refused to go past 150 volts and the other stopped at 200 volts Baseline Condition = 65% shocked to 450 volts Rebellious Stooge Condition = 6/40-15% shocked to 450 volts Obedient Stooge Condition = 29/40- 72.5% went to 450 volts Thus, the presence of rebellious stooges reduced obedience, as the participant felt able to refuse orders once the others had done so. briefly summarise the findings of Milgram's variation called 'the disobedient stooge'

What is Consistency in Minority influence?

Minority influence is effective provided there is stability in the expressed position over time and agreement among the different members of the minority. -May have had to resist social pressures and abuses against their viewpoint MEANS THE MINORITY VIEW GAINS MORE INTEREST- makes others rethink and reassess their own views-considering the issue more carefully as there may be a reason for this position and is sufficiently confident to maintain it. May be SYNCHRONIC (all saying the same thing) or DIACHRONIC (people in minority have been saying the same thing for some time)

What is the alternative research for Asch's study?

Mori & Arai- p's wore filter glasses but one p wore different glasses, perceiving a different comparison line. This got rid of the problem of unconvincing confederates and also included females so was not androcentric like Asch. This refuted Asch's research, suggests differences between genders, females conformed more than males

Social Change

Occurs when a society or section of society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm. CONVERSION- natural prerequisite for social change -Ability to organise, educate and mobilise support for their cause- when individuals band together and form an organisation to focus their collective power, social change can be the result. -Methods that have been used in attempts to bring about social change include: education, persuasion and brute force. CHANGE THAT OCCURS IN SOCIETY NOT INDIVIDUAL LEVEL.

Affiliate

Officially attach or connect (a subsidiary group or a person) to an organization.

Autonomous State

Opposite side of the agentic state, where individuals are seen as personally responsible for their actions.

What were the prods that were given?

PROD 1= 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' PROD 2= 'The experiment requires that you continue' PROD 3= 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' PROD 4= 'You have no other choice, you must go on'

Diachronic Consistency (Minority Influence)

People in minority group have been saying the same thing for some time

Synchronic Consistency (Minority Influence)

People in the minority group are all saying the same thing.

Participant Variables

Personal characteristics that affect the degree to which individuals yield to group pressures.

How does the majority influence the minority?

Power of the majority to establish norms= compliance

How does being consistent help a minority to inflict social change?

Research has shown that a minority is more effective if overtime they are stable and consistent with their view point

RSI

Resisting Social Influence-resisting pressures to conform or obey.

Who proposed the dispositional explanation for social support- LOC?

Rotter

What is the two part model which explains conformity?

The model distinguishes between Normative Social Influence Informational Social Influence

What is Spector's research into social influence resistance?

Spector's research utilised Rotters IE scale on university students and found that p's with high external locus of control did conform more than individuals high in internal LOC, but only in situations that produced normative social pressure. Both types of participants did not conform in situations that produce informational social influence. This suggests that the situational factors play a key role in the likelihood of conformity to social influence and affect resistance. Indeed, it proposes that even those with a high internal LOC may still not be resistant to normative social pressure and have a real care for acceptance. In this way, this research may be seen to refute the dispositional explanation for resistance to social influence. 157 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS FOUND significant correlation between LOC and predisposition to normative social influence -BUT found no such correlation in LOC and predisposition to Informational Social Influence- with LOC not appearing to a significant factor in this type of conformity -SO EXTERNALS DO NOT CONFORM MORE IN SITUATIONS WITH INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE BUT DO CONFORM MORE WHEN NORMATIVE.

What is a social role?

The behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a certain position or status- the part played by members of a social group They become like mental scripts and allow the individual to behave appropriately- involves identification (public and private acceptance) but not as strong as internalisation- only conform in those situations. eg Prison Guard

How does group size affect conformity?

The bigger the majority group, the more people conformed up to a point. The number of confederates varied between 1 & 15. 1 confed= 3% 2 confeds= 14% (13.6%) 3 confeds= 32% (31.8%) This was the only real difference, any more than 3 there wasn't any notable change- optimum conformity effect

What is Legitimate Authority?

The degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and perceived to be in a position of control in a situation. - Doesn't relate to characteristics of a person but instead Milgram suggests that we all expect a socially authoritative figure in every situation and we often associate someone with this control e.g. teacher- fills a certain role in our mind- fits expectation of someone in charge

What is the condition of normative social influence?

The individual must believe they are under surveillance by the group

Snowball Effect

The minority eventually becomes the majority. Over time, people become 'converted'- they switch from the minority to the majority. The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. Gradually, the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred.

What is the conclusion of Zimbardo's study?

The situational hypothesis is favoured over the dispositional. The power of a given situation can easily override individual differences in personality. -Conform unthinkingly and over moral beliefs -Ordinary people can conform to social roles The Stanford Prison Experiment had shed light on the relationship between prisoner and guard to help understand the behavior of those in a position of authority and those in a position of submissive capacity. Zimbardo had attempted to bring change to these conditions with this experiment

Augmentation Principle

There will always be a subset of the minority who are willing to take greater risks and drastic measures for a cause. -Links to Commitment- majority pay even more attention as people in the minority are willing to take big risks in order to change a certain situations- demonstrate commitment to a cause by extremity- wow!

How does an individual's locus of control impact their resistance to social influence?

This is a personality dimension put forward by Rotter (1966). -It is the extent to which people perceive themselves to be in control of their own lives -Individual differences in personalities is our locus of control -This is the extent to which we think we have control over our own behaviour as measured by a questionnaire. IE SCALE (Internal/External Scale)-widely used in the world of psychology test given to subjects- determines certain tendencies -An Internal Locus of Control (ILoC) has been linked to independent behaviour Individuals can have a high internal LOC believing they can affect the outcome of a situation as they are responsible for what happens to them due to their own choices and decisions OR Individuals can have a high external LOC believing that what happens to them is due to either luck, fate or other uncontrollable outside forces and they have no impact on this. -Rotter proposed that LOC develops from past experience- learned that behaving a certain way creates a certain outcome (rewarded for certain actions)- behaviour and consequence- if individual doesn't learn the link/connection between behaviour and consequences, more likely to have external LOC- perceives that what happens to an individual is not due to anything they have done ->-If parenting style which is inconsistent with giving rewards and punishments- more likely to be external ->Generalised expectancies- result in characteristic differences in behaviour- situation characterised by CHANCE DETERMINED VS SKILLS DETERMINED -External- more likely to place riskier bets when gambling, more likely to smoke and spend less time on school work -Internal- higher achievement motivation, less likely to conform to majority opinion- more likely to succeed -Rotter found that LOC can be influenced by socio and cultural economic differences as well as parenting styles- one study found varying rates between ethnic groups -Socio- economic levels may have had an effect -LOC is only relatively stable, given a particular situation, an internal person may become more external and vice versa

Socio-Crypto Amnesia

This refers to people having a memory that a change has happened but not remembering how. Social change came about but some people have no memory of the events leading to that change. ->Last Step in Social Change Processes-The majority opinion then becomes law, and people have to obey this law. Once this happens, the minority opinion has become the dominant position in society, and people do often not even remember where the opinion originated from. This is a process known as crypto amnesia.

What was the aim of Asch's study?

To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

Diffusion of Responsibility

Transfer of responsibility- involved in the Agentic State. Reduction in sense of responsibility often felt by individuals in a group; may be responsible for the bystander effect. Diminished responsibility for own actions when surrounded by others who are acting the same way.

How does uniform affect obedience?

Wearing uniforms gives the perception of legitimate authority. Increased obedience rates. If an ordinary confederate (no white coat) gave the orders then obedience dropped to 20% showing uniform, dressed in a formal way, increases perceived authority status thus increasing obedience. A police officer uniform 72% obeyed as opposed to a beggar 52%.

How does cognitive conflict help a minority inflict social change?

When conflicting views a majority and minority occurs, the majority is forced to think deeply about the issues being challenged

What happened to conformity when participants could write their answers?

When participants were allowed to answer in private (so the rest of the group does not know their response) conformity decreases. This is because there are fewer group pressures and normative influence is not as powerful, as there is no fear of rejection from the group.

Social Roles

Widely shared/socially defined expectations about how people in certain positions/roles are supposed to behave. The part that they play. -This theory contends that there are expectations and responsibilities associated with certain labels, titles or jobs in society which individuals conform to when assigned them