Social Influence Content Booklet 2024 PDF

Psychology​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Paper 1 SOCIAL INFLUENCE CONTENT BOOKLET SPECIFICATION CONTENT Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Expl...

Psychology​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Paper 1 SOCIAL INFLUENCE CONTENT BOOKLET SPECIFICATION CONTENT Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch. Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo. Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity and location as investigated by Milgram, and uniform. Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality. Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support and locus of control. Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and flexibility. The role of social influence processes in social change Name: _________________________________________________ Tutor group: _____ 1  CONFORMITY (Majority Influence) AO1: TYPES OF CONFORMTY 1.​ COMPLIANCE ▪​ Compliance is publicly conforming to the behaviour or views of others in a group but privately maintaining one’s own views (usually to be accepted or avoid disapproval). ▪​ It is the most superficial type of conformity. It involves a temporary change in behaviour, it only lasts as long as the group pressure is present E.g. Claiming to support a certain football team, because the group do, and you want to be accepted and not mocked by them. However, privately you may have little interest in this team, or indeed football at all. 2.​ IDENTIFICATION ▪​ Identification is when individuals adjust their behaviour and/or opinions to those of a group because they identify with and want to become part of the group. Membership of that group is desirable and the members of that group are seen as role models so they try to be like them. ▪​ This is a stronger (deeper) type of conformity, the person’s view changes publicly and privately (has elements of compliance and internalisation). It is generally temporary though and is not maintained when individuals leave the group (relies on presence of the group). E.g. In the army you may adopt the behaviour and beliefs of fellow soldiers, but on leaving the army for civilian life, new behaviours and opinions will be adopted because of a lack of soldier role models. 3.​ INTERNALISATION ▪​ Internalisation is a conversion (or change) of private views to match those of the group. ▪​ The behaviour or belief of the majority is accepted by the individual and becomes part of their own belief system. It is the most permanent form of conformity as it usually lasts even if the majority is no longer present. E.g. A student who becomes a vegetarian while sharing a flat with animal rights activists at university may keep those views and continue to be a vegetarian for the rest of their life. 2  Explain differences between identification and internalisation Identification Internalisation It is t____________ and is not maintained when It is the most p_____________ form of conformity individuals leave the group. as it usually lasts even if the majority is no longer present. The change in behaviour relies on the The change in behaviour persists even in the p____________ of the group. a_____________ of the reference group. AO1: Explanations for conformity Deutsch & Gerard (1955) developed a dual-process model, arguing that there are two main reasons WHY people conform. They distinguished between Normative Social Influence (NSI) and Informational Social Influence (ISI). They are based on two central human needs: the need to be to be liked (NSI) and the need to be right (ISI). NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE (NSI) ▪​ People conform because they desire to be liked, by the other members of the group, and also want to avoid being r____________. ▪​ The important thing is the need for acceptance and social approval from the group, which encourages agreement with the norm, or central view, of the group. ▪​ NSI is more likely to lead to a temporary change in behavior as it is possible to behave like the majority without really accepting their point of view. Therefore NSI is associated with c_____________. INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE (ISI) ▪​ Informational social influence is based on the desire to be right. It occurs when we turn to others who we believe to be c__________, to gain information about how to think or act. ▪​ ISI is more likely to occur in n_______ or ambiguous situations where there is no clear answer, we look to others for guidance ▪​ ISI is more likely to lead to a permanent change in behaviour as we are likely to believe we are doing the ‘right’ thing which is more likely to lead to internalisation. ▪​ For example, you may not know the answer to a question in class but if most of the class agrees on one answer, you accept this answer because you feel they are probably right. 3  AO3: Evaluation of explanations of conformity ​ Evidence to Support Normative Social Influence: Asch’s (1951) line experiment supports NSI as an explanation for conformity. Asch found a 37% conformity rate to obviously incorrect answers, with 75% of participants conforming to at least one wrong answer. When interviewed after the study participants admitted that they knew they were giving the wrong answer but they felt self-conscious giving the right answer and were afraid of disapproval. This supports normative social influence because despite knowing that the answer was incorrect, participants conformed in order to be accepted and have approval from the group – they had a desire to be liked. Further support is offered from Asch’s variation studies. When Asch asked the participants to write down their answers in private conformity rates fell to 12.5%. As most participants conformed publicly, but not privately, it suggests that they were originally motivated by Normative Social Influence- to be accepted. ​ Evidence to support Informational Social Influence: Evidence to support ISI comes from a study by Lucas et al (2006). Lucas asked students to give answers to easy and difficult mathematical problems. The findings showed that there was greater conformity to incorrect answers with the more difficult questions, particularly with participants who rated their maths ability as poor. This supports the idea that people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer so look to other people and assume they know better than us demonstrating the desire to be right. ​ Individual differences are ignored: A limitation of ISI and NSI explanations of conformity is that they do not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way and therefore they fail to account for individual differences. For example, in terms of ISI, Asch (1955) found that students were less conformist than other groups. For example, when Perrin and Spencer replicated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK they found lower conformity rates. It may be that they felt more confident in their precision of measuring lines. This suggests people who are more knowledgeable / more confident are less influenced by the apparently ‘right’ view of the majority. This is a limitation because not all individuals respond to ISI in the same way, these differences must be taken into account in order to gain a full understanding of the factors which explain conformity ​ Not always possible to distinguish between ISI & NSI: A limitation of Deutsch and Gerard's ‘Two-process’ approach is that they suggest that behaviour is either due to NSI OR ISI. However, the truth is that more often both processes are involved. For example, conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting (non-conforming) participant in the Asch experiment. This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI (due to the dissenter providing social support) it could equally reduce the power of ISI (because there is an alternative source of information). This therefore shows that it is not always possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work. This is the case in laboratory studies but, is even more apparent in real life conformity situations outside of the lab. This casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently in conformity behaviour. 4  Exam Questions - Types of Conformity 1. Select the phrase that best describes internalisation. Shade one box only. [1 mark] [AL 2017] AO1 a.​ The individual adopts a role as a member of a group b.​ The individual changes his/her beliefs but it is a temporary change c.​ The individual changes his/her public and private beliefs d.​ The individual goes along with the group but does not agree with them 2. Which two of the following are types of conformity? Shade two boxes only. [2 marks] AO1 [AS Specimen set 1] a.​ Agentic State b.​ Compliance c.​ Group Size d.​ Identification e.​ Unanimity 3. Explain what is meant by compliance in the context of conformity. [2 marks] [Old Spec – AL Jan AO1 2010] 4. Explain what is meant by internalisation. [3 marks] [Old Spec – AL June 2013] AO1 5. Bhavana believes it is right to be a vegetarian having thought carefully about the views on the AO2 websites she has visited. Keegan pretends that he is a vegetarian to fit in with the new friends he has met at college. Zoe is a vegetarian because her friends say she looks healthier as a result of her new diet. a.​ Name the person who demonstrates the process of compliance [1 mark] b.​ Name the person who demonstrates the process of internalisation [1 mark] 5  Exam Questions- Explanations for Conformity 3. Andrea has recently started a new job and on her first day at work she noticed that all AO2 her colleagues were much more smartly dressed than she was. Explain the likely effect of normative social influence on Andrea’s behaviour. [2 marks] 4 A teacher wanted to investigate the attitudes of students in her school to the AO2 school’s homework policy. She used a volunteer sample of students from the school. All the students who volunteered were over 16 years of age. The students were interviewed in groups of four. One of the participants, Ava, strongly believed that the amount of homework she was set was fair. However, when the teacher interviewed her with her three friends, the friends said they thought they had too much homework. Ava also said she thought there was too much homework. Use your knowledge of conformity to explain one reason for Ava’s behaviour. [2 marks] [AS 2020] 5. Briefly outline and evaluate normative social influence as an explanation for conformity. AO1 [4 marks] [AS 2017] AO3 6. Psychologists investigating social influence have discovered several reasons why AO1 people conform. Discuss what psychological research has told us about why people AO3 conform. [16 marks] [AL 2018] 7 Outline and evaluate explanations for conformity (16 marks) Discuss research into variables affecting conformity investigated by Asch (8/16 marks) 8 Discuss research into explanations for conformity (8/16 marks) 6  Asch’s research into conformity The Line Experiment (original) ASCH (1951) Aim ​ To investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answers. Procedure ​ 123 Male US undergraduates took part in a laboratory experiment. ​ Told the study was on visual perception. ​ 7-9 people sat looking at a display and had to say out loud which one of 3 lines A, B or C was the same as a given stimulus line. ​ The correct answer was always obvious (unambiguous). ​ All participants, except for 1, were confederates (accomplices) who were working for Asch and gave same incorrect answer on 12/18 critical trials. Findings ​ Ps conformed on 37% of the critical trials ​ 75% of the participants conformed to at least one wrong answer, leaving 25% of participants who never gave a wrong answer. ​ 5% of the participants conformed to all wrong answers. Conclusions ​ When interviewed afterwards they said that they conformed publicly to avoid rejection and disapproval but privately they continued to trust their own judgements. As most participants performed publicly, but not privately, it suggests that they were motivated by Normative Social Influence. ​ Demonstrates a strong tendency to conform to group pressures in a situation even when the answer is clear. However, in roughly 63% of these trials the participants stuck to their original judgments also demonstrating a tendency for participants to stick to what they believed to be correct. 7  AO1: Variables Affecting Conformity Investigated by Asch (Situational variables) Asch carried out a number of variations of his original study to find out which variables had the most significant effects on conformity levels. This research has identified several situational variables that influence levels of conformity in individuals. Variation Procedure Conformity rates Why? TASK DIFFICULTY Asch increased the task When the task was ISI plays a greater role when Conformity increases difficulty by making the more difficult, the task is more difficult. This when task difficulty stimulus line and the participants were is because the situation is increases, as the right comparison lines more more likely to more ambiguous so we are answer becomes less similar to each other IN conform to the wrong more likely to look to other obvious, therefore LENGTH, so the correct answer. people more for guidance confidence in our own answer was less obvious. and assume they are right judgement tends to drop. about the correct response. Variation Procedure Conformity rates Why? GROUP SIZE With 1 real participant and Due to NSI. The task is conformity rates increase Asch 1 confederate conformity unambiguous and so the only as the size of a majority investigated was low at 3% rising to 13% reason participants conform would increases, but only to a group size by with 2 confederates and be to avoid disapproval of the certain point, where varying the 32% with 3 confederates. group. further increases to number of Adding extra confederates However, Increasing the size of the group size doesn’t lead confederates (up to 15) had no further majority beyond 3 did not increase to further increases in (1-15) effect on overall conformity. Brown and Byrne conformity. conformity rates. Group (1997) suggest that people might suspect collusion if the majority size is important but only to rises beyond three or four. a certain point. Variation Procedure Conformity rates Why? BREAKING UNANIMITY Asch introduced a When the ps were given support by a Breaking the Unanimity means that all confederate who confederate who gave the correct groups unanimity group members are in disagreed with the answers throughout, conformity reduces their agreement with each other (as others. Sometimes the dropped to 5.5. % power in original). new confederate gave When a lone dissenter gave a different Less pressure to Conformity rates decline when the correct answer. wrong answer (different from majority conform. Less majority influence is not sometimes a different and true answer) conformity dropped fear of rejection unanimous (majority does not wrong answer (different to 9%. (Less NSI). agree with each other) to the majority). 8  AO3: Evaluation of Asch’s research into conformity Methodology: High Control – A strength of Asch’s methodology is that he conducted a controlled laboratory experiment. This meant that Asch could achieve a very high degree of control over many variables, for example he could control the group size and where the naïve participant sat. Having such control over variables is a strength as it reduces the effects of possible extraneous variables and means that the level of conformity is likely to be a result of the manipulation of these variables. This allows cause and effect to be established, increasing the internal validity of his research. Methodology: Low Ecological Validity – However, Asch’s research was conducted in a highly controlled environment and therefore, may not reflect how conformity effects people in real life conformity situations. Participants knew they were in a research study and may simply have picked up on cues/clues and gone along with what they thought the investigation was about (demand characteristics). Also, judging the length of lines, is a rather trivial task and the naïve participant was in a group of strangers. Real-life conformity situations tend to occur in groups of people we know e.g. friends, co-workers. This means that Aschs findings may lack ecological validity as they do not tell us about conformity in everyday situations. Therefore we need to be careful when generalising the findings to situations where the consequences are more important (not trivial), for example when sitting on a jury. Asch’s research may represent ‘a child of its time’ – It is possible that these findings are unique because the research took place in a particular period of history in the USA when conformity was high and therefore it made sense to conform to established social norms. People might be less likely to conform in subsequent decades. Perrin & Spencer replicated Asch’s study in England in the 1980’s with science and engineering students and found only one student conformed on 396 trials. This is a limitation though because it questions the temporal validity of Asch’s research into conformity. Cultural bias – One problem with Asch’s research is that he did not take cultural differences into account. The participants in Asch’s study were all from the United States, an individualistic culture where people are more concerned with themselves than the social group (and so are less likely to conform). Similar conformity studies conducted in collectivist cultures, such as China where the social group is more important than the individual, have found conformity rates are higher. This makes sense because such cultures are more oriented to 9 group needs (Smith and Bond, 1996). This is a limitation because conformity levels are sometimes even higher than Asch found and thus we need to be careful about generalising Asch’s results to people outside of the United States. Ethical Issues – A further limitation of Asch’s experiment is that there were ethical issues such as deception involved. Asch’s naïve (real) participants were were misled about key aspects of the experimental procedures, for example, they thought the other participants estimating line length were genuine participants like themselves, when in fact they were confederates. As a result, lack of informed consent was an issue as participants did not know the true nature of the study was about conformity, although researchers would argue that deception was necessary in this experiment to avoid demand characteristics. It is therefore suggested that the ethical costs should be weighed against the benefits for society. The main benefit was highlighting people’s susceptibility to group conformity. Exam Questions – Asch’s Research 1.​ Which of the following statements best describes how unanimity is found to AO1 affect conformity? [1 mark] [Staff created question] a.​ Conformity increases when the task becomes more ambiguous. b.​ Conformity rates are higher when all members of a group are in agreement. c.​ When a person wants to be accepted by a group they are likely to conform. d.​ When more people are present conformity is higher, up to a certain point. 2. Briefly outline how two variables investigated by Asch were found to affect AO1 conformity. [2 marks] [AS 2018] 3. Identify three variables affecting conformity and outline how each of these AO1 variables were investigated on Asch’s experiment. [6 marks] [AS Specimen Set 3] 4. Outline Asch’s findings in relation to two variables affecting conformity. Briefly AO1 explain two limitations of Asch’s conformity research. [8 marks] [AS 2016] AO3 5. Outline and evaluate research into conformity. [16 marks] [Old spec] AO1 AO3 10  AO1: CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES RESEARCH: ZIMBARDO (1973) - The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) *Controlled observation NOT an experiment ​ To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles in a role-playing simulation of prison life. Aim ​ To investigate whether conforming behaviour was due to the person (dispositional factors) or the prison context (situational factors – so in real life they would not conform to the roles). ​ Controlled, participant observation -in a mock prison at Stanford University USA. ​ 24 male students from a volunteer sample. ​ All volunteers were psychologically and physically screened. ​ Participants were randomly allocated to either the role of prisoner or guard. ​ Zimbardo played the role of prison supervisor and the study was planned to last 14 days. Dehumanisation and Deindividuation process ​ The prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home and taken to the prison and Procedure dehumanised. Dehumanisation (is a process where people are degraded by lessening their human qualities). Prisoners were dehumanised by being blindfolded and being given stocking caps to simulate a bald head. ​ The process of deindividuation was also part of the procedure. Deindividuation (is a process where individuals lose a sense of personal identity). The prisoners were de-individuated by being dressed in smock dresses and given a prison ID number. ​ The guards were also deindividuated by wearing uniforms and reflective (mirror) sunglasses which made them feel anonymous. ​ Dehumanisation was apparent as the guards began to humiliate the prisoners and made them clean the toilets with their bare hands. ​ Deindividuation was noticeable by the prisoners referring to each other and themselves by their prison numbers instead of their names. Findings ​ Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their social roles within the prison. Participants found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than in a psychological experiment. ​ Their behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health and the study was stopped after 6 days. 11  ​ The SPE revealed the power of the situation. The social roles influenced their uncharacteristic behaviour, even when such roles override an individual’s moral Conclusion beliefs about their personal behaviour. AO3: EVALUATION OF RESEARCH INTO CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES Real Life Explanatory Power/practical application improvements in prisons – A strength of Zimbardo’s FINDINGS, is that they can help explain real life examples of prison abuse. Zimbardo argues that the same conformity to social role effect evident in the SPE was also present in Abu Ghraib, a military prison in Iraq notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraq prisoners by US soldiers in 2003/4. Zimbardo suggests that situational factors such as lack of training, boredom and no accountability to higher authority were present both in the SPE and at Abu Ghraib. These, combined with an opportunity to misuse the power associated with the assigned role of ‘guard’, led to the prisoner abuses in both situations. This is a strength because the findings have increased our understanding of the power of the situation. Zimbardo’s findings have helped to lead to beneficial reforms within prison systems and the way real prisoners are treated, highlighting its real-life application. (Note evaluation point for findings NOT procedure) Ethical Issues: A major problem with the PROCEDURES of Zimbardo’s study are the ethical issues that it raised. Ethical issues surrounding right to withdraw and protection from harm a arose due to Zimbardo’s dual role as both experimenter and Prison Superintendent. For example, a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as Superintendent and the conversation was conducted on the basis that the student was a prisoner in a prison, asking to be ‘released’. Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than a researcher with responsibilities to his participants. This is a weakness of the procedure because he failed to protect his participants from psychological harm by making the right to withdraw difficult, even when the participants made him aware of their distress. Despite this, Zimbardo eventually acknowledged this and stopped the study early after 6 days as so many of the participants were experiencing emotional distress. (NOTE evaluation point for the procedure NOT findings) Demand Characteristics – Another issue, with the PROCEDURE of Zimbardo’s research is that of demand characteristics. It has been argued that the behaviour of Zimbardo’s guards and prisoners was not due to their response to a compelling prison environment but rather to powerful demand characteristics in the experimental situation itself. They guessed what the experimenters wanted them to behave like. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) gave details of the SPE procedure to a large sample of students who had never heard of the study before and found that the vast majority of these students correctly guessed that the purpose of the experiment was to show that ordinary 12 people would act like real prisoners (passive) and guards (hostile). They were just play acting based on stereotypes rather than genuinely conforming to the role. This is a limitation of the procedure because it lowers the study’s internal validity as it was measuring play acting rather than real conformity. BUT, in defence, Zimbardo would argue that the situation was very real to the participants. Quantitative data gathered during the procedure showed that 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life. Prisoner 416 expressed the view that the prison was a real one run by the government not by psychologists. Therefore, this gives the study high internal validity. (NOTE evaluation point for the procedure NOT findings) Role of dispositional influences was ignored - One limitation of Zimbardo’s FINDINGS and conclusions was that he exaggerated the role of the environment. Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour, and minimising the role of personality factors (dispositional influences). For example, only a minority of the guards (about 1/3) behaved in a brutal manner and another third were keen on applying the rules fairly. The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges (Zimbardo, 2007). The differences in the guards’ behaviour showed that they could exercise right and wrong choices despite situational pressures to conform to a role. This is a limitation of the findings because both situational and dispositional factors should be considered in order to draw accurate conclusions of conformity to social roles. (Note evaluation point for findings NOT procedure) ​ ​ Exam Questions – Conformity to Social Roles 1. Which two of the following statements about Zimbardo’s prison study are correct? Shade two AO1 boxes only. The study showed how… [2 marks] [AS Specimen 2nd Set] ​ ​ ​ a.​ Roles affect behaviour b.​ People obey authority c.​ Unanimity affects behaviour d.​ People conform to the majority e.​ Behaviour is influenced by loss of identity 2. Outline the procedures and findings of Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles. [4 AO1 marks] [AL Specimen 2nd Set] 3. Many people have criticised Zimbardo’s prison study. Identify and briefly discuss two reasons AO3 why people have criticised Zimbardo’s prison study. [6 marks] [AS Specimen 2nd Set] 4. Describe and evaluate the procedure of Zimbardo’s research into social roles. [8 marks] [AS AO1 2018] AO3 13  AO1: Milgram’s Research into Obedience (original study) Research into Obedience and the Power of an Authority Figure: Milgram (1963) Aim ​ Milgram wanted to investigate the power of an authority figure and find out if ordinary people would obey the demands of a perceived legitimate authority figure, even if the demands were morally wrong. ​ To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis, which claimed that Germans are highly obedient, and that Hitler could not have exterminated the Jewish people and other minority groups, without the unquestioning cooperation of the German population. Procedure ​ Laboratory experiment, Yale University, to see how punishment affects learning. ​ Volunteer sample of 40 male participants, aged 20-50. Paid $4.50. ​ The participant was always the ‘Teacher’ and there was two confederates-one acted as a ‘learner’ and one as an ‘experimenter’. ​ The first confederate ‘The Experimenter’ was wearing a white lab coat and the second confederate was participant Mr Wallace. ​ The ‘learner’ gave wrong answers and received fake shocks starting at 15 volts and going up in 15volt steps until 450volts. ​ The ‘learner’ was in a different room, and cried out after each shock. ​ If the participants didn’t want to carry on, the ‘experimenter’ would say ‘prods’ like ‘please continue’ Findings ​ All participants obeyed and gave shocks up to at least 300volts. ​ 12.5% of participants stopped at 300volts. ​ 65% of participants continued all the way to 450 volts. Conclusions ​ Ordinary people will obey authority even when they know that what they are doing is wrong- so it isnt just evil people who commit evil crimes, but ordinary people who are obeying orders. 14  AO1: Situational Variables Affecting Obedience SITUATIONAL VARIABLES 1.​ Proximity (Milgram) 2.​ Location (Milgram) 3.​ Uniform (Bickman) Milgram used his original study as a baseline study and set about to investigate these in variations of his original experiment. In order to explore the factors that influence obedience, Milgram replicated his experiment and altered each situational variable to determine the effect it would have on rates of obedience. Variable ‘As investigated Obedience Why did this influence obedience? by Milgram’ rates PROXIMITY: Reduced The participants were more likely to Physical closeness or Proximity: obey the authority figure in the distance of an The Experimenter DROPPED original study as they were in the authority figure to gave orders to the TO agentic state and felt as though the the person they are Teacher via a 21% experimenter would take on the giving an order to. telephone in a FROM responsibility (diffusion of In the original study different room. BASELINE responsibility). In this variation, the Experimenter and 65% when the orders were given by the Teacher were in same authority figure via the phone, the room. participants were in the autonomous state and believed they were responsible for their own actions and therefore less likely to obey. 15  Variable ‘As investigated by Obedience Why did this influence obedience? Milgram’ rates LOCATION: Different Location: The location of the original The location, or setting of a DROPPED experiment adds to the legitimacy situation or environment can Milgram repeated TO of the authority figure giving the affect the ways a request is his study in a 48% order. Several participants remarked viewed – and therefore the Run-down office FROM that the prestigious location, gave likelihood of obedience. block. BASELINE them confidence in the integrity of 65% the people involved. In the original study the When repeated in the less experiment was conducted prestigious location of a run-down at Yale University (High office block, fewer people obey the status university). instructions given to them as they did not value the experiment with the same integrity as they did at Yale University. Variable ‘As investigated by Bickman’ Obedience Why did this influence rates obedience? UNIFORM Bickman (1974) carried out a field Security guard The clothing worn by an experiment in New York in which condition- Uniforms are easily authority figure can passers-by were given one of three 82% of recognisable and affect the perception a orders: pick up a paper bag, lend participants convey power and person has of them, and money to a stranger for a parking obeyed the authority, they offer a would then change meter, stand at another place at a request to sense of legitimacy to whether or not they bus stop. In one condition the lend money. those who wear them. would obey. experimenter was dressed as a Normal security guard. In another clothes condition the experimenter wore condition- normal clothes. 36% obeyed the request. 16  AO3: Evaluation of Research into Obedience & Situational Variables Control of variables- One strength of research into situational variables affecting obedience is that we can make a direct comparison between levels of obedience in the two variations studied. For example, with research into the situational variable of location, when comparing obedience levels in the two locations, all other variables were standardised (kept the same), so we can conclude with some certainty that the drop-in obedience in the run-down office block was due to the change in location. This allows cause and effect to be established, increasing the internal validity of the findings showing that location is a situational variable which affects obedience levels. Internal Validity – Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s research and claimed that the participants were ‘going along with the act’ when they ‘shocked’ the learner. They argued that participants did not believe they were really giving electric shocks and that they were not really distressed, just pretending in order to please the experimenter (demand characteristics). This would question the internal validity of the research because Milgram is measuring how the participants play along with the requests, rather than measuring obedience directly. However, Milgram disputed these claims, providing evidence from debriefing sessions (of participants admitted they had believed they were giving shocks) and through film evidence where participants appeared in considerable distress when delivering the shocks. External validity – There is low external validity (both ecological and population) in Milgram’s research. The ecological validity is low because they were highly controlled lab experiments. Baumrind suggested that it was not possible to generalise these findings to 'real life', because the study was carried out at Yale University (US Ivy League University) and the only conclusion can be about obedience to a researcher in a laboratory. In addition, the population validity was low, because the study used paid male volunteers, and in Psychology it is known that volunteers are not representative of the population e.g. usually volunteers are more helpful than non-volunteers. In addition another problem are the gender differences between how males and females respond to authority E.g. generally women would have been expected to be more obedient in the 1960s. Generally women are more ‘nurturing’ therefore may be less likely to deliver electric shocks than men. This suggests that Milgram’s research lacks both ecological and population validity and caution needs to be taken when generalising obedience findings to female samples and to real life obedience situations.. 17  Research Support for obedience in real-life situations – Hofling et al (1996) field experiment supports Milgrams research. Hofling et al (1996) suggests that obedience is observable in settings other than laboratories and so studied obedience in the real life setting of a hospital. Nurses were telephoned by a fictitious doctor to give a higher dose of a potentially dangerous unknown drug to a patient, if they obeyed the unusual order they would be breaking hospital rules. Despite this, 95% of nurses (21 out of 22) followed this order. This shows that Milgram’s high levels of obedience to an unusual request have been replicated in real life situations. Reliability – A strength of Milgram’s original research is that it has been repeated numerous times since it was first completed, yielding very high levels of obedience, like the original study. One example of this was the French television show ‘Le Jeu de la Mort’ (translated: The Game of Death) the participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show – they were asked to give electric shocks to other contestants (who were actually actors) when ordered by the presenter, in front of a studio audience. 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460volts to an apparently unconscious man – they showed a lot of the same behaviours as those in Milgram’s study, nail biting and other signs of anxiety. This supports the original findings and conclusions, and shows that it was not a one-off occurrence - meaning the study has good reliability. AO1 & AO3: Ethical Issues of Research into Obedience Deception – Milgram’s research raised a number of ethical issues. Milgram deceived his participants by telling them that they were involved in a study of the effects of punishment on learning. By using deception, he effectively denied the participants the right to informed consent. However, Milgram argued that deception was necessary because if participants had known the true aim of the study, they would have changed their behaviour (demand characteristics) and the findings would have been meaningless (low internal validity). In order to deal with the ethical issue of deception, Milgram debriefed participants, reassuring them that their behaviour had been normal, and answered their questions. In research like Milgram’s a debrief can be used to justify the deception involved. Right to withdraw was unclear – The right to withdraw was not made clear to participants. Participants were told at the start of the study that they could withdraw at any point if they wanted to, and that they could keep the money they had been given if they decided to leave. However, during the study if they expressed a desire to leave verbal prods were given like “please continue”, which made it very difficult for some participants who felt they had no choice about continuing. This means that their right to withdraw is unclear, which is ethically unacceptable. 18 Protection from Psychological harm - Baumrind criticised the research saying that participants were not protected from psychological harm she argued that participants suffered considerable distress which was not justified given the aims of the research. However, in a follow-up study, 84% of the participants indicated that they were ‘glad to have taken part’; and 74% felt they had learned something extremely valuable about themselves. Baumrind also claimed that participants would suffer permanent psychological harm from their participation in the study, including a loss of self-esteem and distrust of authority. However, psychiatric examinations one year later showed no sign of psychological damage which could be attributed to the participation in the research. AO1: Explanations for obedience EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE 1.​ Agentic State 2.​ Legitimacy of Authority 3.​ The Authoritarian Personality (Dispositional explanation) AO1: Agentic State: Explanation for obedience Agency theory proposes that there are two states (of mind) 1.​ The autonomous state – Usually individuals act in an autonomous state. Here, the individual assumes full responsibility for their behaviours and is fully aware of the consequences of their actions. In this state an individual’s behaviour is guided by their own values, beliefs and principles. 2.​ The agentic state – This is where the individual feels they are acting on behalf of someone else. The individual feels diminished personal responsibility and therefore do not feel guilty about their actions because they are an agent simply carrying out orders from others. If an authority figure says that they are responsible this causes a person to move from an autonomous state into the agentic state which is known as the AGENTIC SHIFT i.e. moving from taking personal responsibility for our actions to believing one is acting on behalf of an authority figure. We are more likely to obey authority when we believe that we are acting as an ‘agent’ – for, or on behalf of the authority figure. This increased obedience is because we see the 19 authority figure as responsible for the behaviours and any potential consequences through a diffusion of responsibility. This effect is made bigger when the authority is legitimate and we mindlessly accept orders. Binding Factors Once a person has entered the agentic state, what keeps them in it? In all social situations, including experiments, there is a social etiquette that plays a part in regulating our behaviour. In order to break off the experiment, the ppt must breach the commitment that he made to the experimenter. Thus, the ppt fears that if he breaks off, he will appear arrogant and rude and so such behaviour is not taken lightly. These emotions, although they appear small in scope alongside the violence, it helps bind the subject into obedience. AO3: Evaluation of Agentic state Research Support - Milgram found research support for the agentic state when he varied his original experiment. Obedience rates reduced to 20.5% when the instruction to give an electric shock was given over a telephone, rather than when the Experimenter was giving the instruction in the same room as the participant. This can be explained by the agentic shift because in the original experiment the Teacher is acting on behalf of the Experimenter, and the Teacher mindlessly accepts the order. We see that the obedience rate is 65% and participants clearly displaying an agentic state, where they can pass the responsibility to the Experimenter and they believe that they won’t be held responsible for their own actions. In the variation with the telephone, the participant is alone and is now in the autonomous state, where there is high personal responsibility for their actions and their own principles guide their decisions as there is no experimenter present to pass the responsibility to. This therefore supports that being in an agentic state increases obedience. Real Life Examples: The agentic state helps to explain real life cases, and many have used it in their defence of their actions. Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi commander who was responsible for the genocide of millions in concentration camps, stood trial for his crimes after the Second World War ended. His defence was that he was simply ‘only following orders’ – suggesting that he saw himself in the agentic state, obeying someone who was a higher-ranked than himself. Although Eichmann was eventually executed for the role he played in the Holocaust, this shows that the defence can be, and is used by those who have committed crimes. 20  AO1: Legitimacy of Authority Explanation for obedience Legitimacy of authority is related to the amount of social power that is held by the person giving instructions. Most human societies are organised in a hierarchical way with clearly identifiable individuals at the top who have legitimate social power to give orders to people lower down in the hierarchy. Social power may be associated with social roles (teachers, police officers, doctors etc.) or with social status (gang members, older family members etc.) and from a young age we are taught that obeying people with authority makes us more acceptable. Legitimacy can also be related to the facts that those with authority may have the power to punish us (e.g. police can issue a fine or a prison sentence) , or we may trust the instructions they give due to their expertise (e.g. qualifications/credentials). AO3: Evaluation of legitimacy of authority Supporting Research: Milgram’s original laboratory experiment involved using a confederate who played the role of the Experimenter. In order to create a sense of legitimacy, the Experimenter wore a white lab coat which signalled status and authority to the real participants. Obedience was high (65%) which suggest that the perceived legitimacy of the Experimenter had an effect on the real participant’s obedience levels. To further support this, Bickman (1974) carried out a field experiment in New York in which he asked passers-by to complete tasks such as picking up rubbish or lending money to a stranger for a parking meter. In one condition, when the experimenter was dressed as a security guard, 82% of participants obeyed the request to lend money, due to the legitimacy the uniform portrayed. In another condition, the experimenter wore normal clothes and 36% obeyed the request. Demonstrating how important the uniform can be in changing obedience rates. Cultural differences: A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of 21  their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale. On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants-85%. This shows in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increases the validity of the explanation. Does not provide a complete explanation of why we obey- One limitation of agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations of obedience is that they do not consider other factors which can influence obedience levels. There are also dispositional factors that can influence obedience levels, such as the individual having specific authoritarian traits. In addition to this, situational variables such as proximity can also explain why people obey authority figures. This is a limitation as the situational explanations of obedience fail to acknowledge the complexity of factors affecting obedience such as an individual’s personality. (NOTE this can be used to evaluate agentic state and legitimacy of authority) AO1: The Authoritarian Personality: Dispositional Explanation for Obedience Psychologists have attempted to establish whether a specific personality type is more likely to be obedient than others. The authoritarian personality is a dispositional explanation of obedience, which suggests that an individual has a collection of traits (or dispositions) that have evolved as their personality has developed throughout their childhood, possibly due to strict parenting. This means that obedience is due to an individual’s personality not the situation. ​ People with an authoritarian personality identify with ‘strong’ people. They show dislike for people they perceive as having a lower social status and are generally hostile towards those who were ‘weak’. ​ They are hyper-conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect for those who were in positions of authority above them. They are likely to be obedient and submissive towards people of perceived higher status because they believe in absolute obedience towards authority. ​ They are likely to be highly conformist, conventional and dogmatic (strong expression of opinions, as if they are facts). ​ They have a cognitive style characterised by ‘black or white’ thinking. In terms of obedience this could lead to beliefs such as absolute obedience. 22  AO3: Evaluation of the Dispositional Explanation to Obedience Research support – Research to support the dispositional explanation of obedience comes from Milgram and Elms (1966) who conducted interviews with a sample of participants from Milgram’s study believing that there might be a link between obedience and authoritarianism. The questions in the interview were designed to measure the authoritarian personality. He found that those who were fully obedient and went to 450V scored higher on tests of authoritarianism (e.g. scored highly on the F-scale) than those who defied the experimenter. In addition to this, Zillmer et al (1995) reported that sixteen Nazi war criminals scored highly on three of the F-scale dimensions. This provides reliable support to the theory that an authoritarian personality increases obedience. This supports the idea of a correlation between authoritarian personality type and obedience. Methodological Criticisms – A limitation of research support for authoritarian personality is the methodology used. Adorno and his colleagues measured a range of variables and found many significant correlations between them. However, no matter how strong a correlation between two variables might be, this does not mean that one causes the other. Therefore, although authoritarianism and obedience may be linked, the link is limited and we cannot conclude that an authoritarian personality causes high level of obedience. This means that this link is only correlational so this makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that an authoritarian personality causes obedience, just that there is a relationship. Ignores role of education - A limitation of the dispositional explanation is that it attempts to explain the complex human personality and the complex behaviour of obedience in a simplistic way by assuming that a correlation provides empirical evidence for cause and effect. In adopting these assumptions, the dispositional explanation ignores the impact of other factors such as the level of education that the individual has experienced. Middendorp and Meloen, (1990) have found that less-educated people are consistently more authoritarian than the well-educated people are and Milgram also found reliable support for this. This suggests that authoritarianism is only one factor and that there are a number of 23 inter-connected factors and variables that may determine authoritarianism and obedience. Oversimplistic - Further to this there are a number of situational variables (Proximity, Location, and Uniform) which might be important in situations where there is high obedience. The authoritarian personality explanation overlooks these by proposing a solely dispositional explanation. This suggests that we should take a more holistic view when trying to explain obedience and this holistic view should acknowledge both situational and dispositional factors. Methodological problems with the F scale: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Possible Exam Questions ​ ​ 1. Which of the following statements best describes the agentic state? Shade one box only. [1 AO1 mark] [AS 2017] People feel responsible for their actions and act according to their own principles. a.​ People feel that they are not responsible for the actions of a group. b.​ People make others feel responsible for their actions. People no longer feel responsible for their actions as they are acting for an authority figure. 2. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Shade one box only. According to the Authoritarian AO1 Personality explanation for obedience, people who show unquestioning obedience… [1 mark] [AS Specimen 3rd Set] a.​ have little respect for those in power b.​ are kind to those they think are less important c.​ are very aware of social status are accepting of people from different backgrounds 3. Outline agency theory as an explanation of obedience. [4 marks] [Staff created question] AO1 4. Outline the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience. [4 marks] [AS 2019] AO1 5. A senior army instructor is advising new instructors how to ensure discipline in training classes. AO2 He says, ‘Always wear your instructor jacket and stand up close when giving instructions. Make them all understand who has responsibility for the exercise. Serious problems should always be dealt with in the instructors’ office’ Referring to research into obedience, explain three reasons why the instructor’s advice should be effective. [6 marks] [AS Specimen 3rd set] 24  6. Briefly explain one limitation of the authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience. [2 AO3 marks] [AS 2019] 7. Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells AO1 us about why people obey. [16 marks] [AS 2017] AO3 8. It is the end of the school day and Freddie is pushing other students in the bus queue. “Stop it, AO1 will you?” protests one of Freddie’s classmates. “You can’t tell me what to do!” laughs Freddie. AO2 At that moment, Freddie turns to see the deputy head, wearing a high-visibility jacket, staring AO3 angrily at him. Without thinking, Freddie stops pushing the other boys and waits quietly in line. Discuss the legitimacy of authority and agentic state explanations of obedience. Refer to Freddie’s behaviour in your answer. [16 marks] [AL 2020] 25  AO1: Explanations of Resistance to Social Influence EXPLANATIONS FOR RESISTANCE 1.​ Locus of Control (internal) - dispositional 2.​ Social Support - situational Resisting social influence essentially means that a person is not influenced by others (NSI or ISI) they do not conform to the pressures of a group and they do not obey orders, instead they act independently and make their own decisions. People do have an ability to resist or withstand the social pressures to obey an authority or conform to the influence of others and remain independent. AO1: Locus of Control: Dispositional Explanation for Resistance In some cases, people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality. Rotter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives. It is measured on a continuum and an individual will have either an internal or external locus of control and their scores will fall somewhere between the two extremes. Internal Locus of Control People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that they have control over their life. Rotter proposes that the individuals with an internal locus of control would be better at resisting social pressures (such as the need to conform or obey) as they feel in control of situations. They feel they take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences and they make decisions based on their own beliefs. 26 People with internal locus of control tend to be more self-CONFIDENT, more intelligent and more achievement oriented. These personality traits lead to greater resistance to conformity and obedience. Feeling confident in their own decisions means they have less need to look to others for social approval (so reduced NSI) and less need to look to others for information (so reduced ISI), and are more able to resist social influence. External Locus of Control People with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors such as luck or fate or other people. These individuals are more likely to conform and obey as they feel that they do not have complete control over their life therefore they allow others to control their life. They believe that things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions making them less able to resist social influence. (NOTE: external LOC is NOT an explanation for resistance so do not include lots of detail on it in a Q which asks for an explanation for resistance) Evaluation of Locus on control Supporting evidence from obedience research - Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey. Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII, and compared those who had resisted orders, and protected Jewish people from the Nazi’s, to those who had not. Oliner and Oliner found that the ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have an internal locus of control, than the 126 people who had simply followed orders. These results therefore appear to support the idea that an internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders and obey (remain independent). Supporting evidence from conformity research - Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist conformity. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with an internal locus of control were more likely to resist conformity in situations where the desire was to be liked. However not necessarily when the desire was to be right. Alternative explanation – There may be other factors such as social responsibility that may also contribute to individuals resisting social influence. Elms and Milgram set out to investigate the disobedient participants in Milgram’s experiments, by follow up interviews with a sample of participants. They found that disobedient participants had an internal locus of control and scored 27 higher on a social responsibility scale. Therefore, it appears that locus of control and social responsibility may be important factors in an individual’s ability to disobey orders or to defy social norms (show independent behaviour). This suggests that other factors need to be considered when explaining resisting social influence. Methodological criticism- One criticism is the methodology used to investigate locus of control. This is because locus of control has typically been assessed using the Rotter scale which was a 23 item forced choice scale. This consists of pairs of statements and for each item the respondent is asked to indicate which of the two statements more closely fits his or her views. As ever with self-report studies, there is the problem of social desirability bias, where respondents may feel the need to ‘say the right thing’ to please the researcher. This would then cast doubt on the validity of the categorisation of respondents into internal or external types. AO1: Social Support: Situational Explanation for Resistance Resisting Conformity The presence of support from someone else makes it easier to resist social pressure, as the individual feels more confident in their own decision and therefore more confident to reject the majority position if someone else is doing so too. Having an ally, who shares the individuals view, breaks the unanimity of the group. Once the unanimous position of the majority is broken others are then ‘freed up’ to think, respond or behave in a different way to the majority. Resisting Obedience The presence of other people who disobey (disobedient models) can serve to reduce obedience. Another person disobeying seems to act as a role model and empowers the observer to also disobey. It is often difficult to take a stance against authority because the obedience of others makes, even a harmful action, appear acceptable. Having a disobedient role model who resists the pressures to obey challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure. 28  Evaluation of Social support Supporting evidence from conformity research - Evidence for this explanation comes from one of Asch’s (1951) variations. In one of the variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation the rate of conformity dropped to 5% showing that having an ally makes it easier to resist conformity. Asch also showed that if the ‘non-conforming’ confederate started to conform again, then so does the naïve participant. This study therefore demonstrates that if an individual has social support for their belief, then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform. Supporting evidence from obedience research - Furthermore, evidence for this explanation comes from Milgram (1974). In one of Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 volts, dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows that if the real participant has support for their desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure. Variations from Milgram therefore suggest that if an individual has social support then they are likely to resist the pressure to obey. Credibility of social support - A strength of the social support explanation is that research shows that the social support does not even have to be valid to have an effect and help individuals to resist social influence for example Allen and Levine (1971) found that people resisted conformity even when the support was not particularly convincing e.g. they carried out an Asch style study where the ally wore thick glasses and said he had eyesight problems. Even in this study, resistance to conformity increased. This suggests that a poor source of support still increases resistance to SI i.e. even when the support is not credible. Alternative explanation - There may be other factors such as confidence that may also contribute to individuals resisting social influence. It is believed that individuals find it much easier to resist social influence if they have real confidence in the correctness of their own answers. In Lucas’ et al. (2006) study participants were given easy and hard problems in mathematics. They resisted social influence 92% if the questions were easy problems but only 29% of the time with hard problems. Additionally, Perrin and Spencer replicated Asch’s original study with engineering students in the UK and also found less conformity (only one out of 396 trials). It may be that they felt more confident in their precision of measuring lines. This suggests that people who are more confident are less influenced by the apparently ‘right’ view of the majority and are able to resist social influence. 29 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Possible Exam Questions 1. Read the following statements. AO1 A.​ When in the presence of an authority figure, an individual will act on behalf of the authority figure and feel less responsible for their own behaviour. B.​ The belief that a person is in control of what happens to them and it is a result of their own behaviour and choices. C.​ The belief that what happens in life is due to luck or fate. D.​ The presence of other people disobeying an authority figure shows others that resistance to social influence is possible. E.​ People will conform due to the need for acceptance or approval. In the table below, write which statement A, B, C, D, or E, best describes each explanation of resisting social influence. [3 marks] [Staff created question] Social support Internal locus of control External locus of control 2. Outline two explanations of resistance to social influence. [4 marks] [AL 2019] AO1 3. Daniel and Matthew are in the same class at school but have very different views on success. AO2 Daniel is convinced that success is due to hard work and determination, whilst Matthew believes that luck and fate determine success. The class is putting on a play and neither Daniel nor Matthew wants to participate. Their friends are trying to persuade them to take part. Using your knowledge of locus of control, identify which boy is most likely to resist the social influence of his friends. Explain why. [4 marks] [AL 2017] 4. Another boy in the class, Tom, refuses to take part in the play. Explain how Tom’s refusal to take AO2 part might affect Daniel’s and Matthew’s ability to resist social influence. [2 marks] [AL 2017] 5. Briefly evaluate social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence. [4 marks] AO3 [Staff created question] 6. Outline and briefly evaluate locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence. AO1 [6 marks] [AS Specimen 3rd Set] AO3 7. Outline and evaluate locus of control as an explanation for resistance to social influence. [8 AO1 marks] [AS 2020] AO3 8. Two psychology students were discussing the topic of social influence. AO1 ‘I find it fascinating how some people are able to resist social influence’, said Jack. ‘It must be AO2 the results of having a confident personality.’ ‘I disagree’, replied Sarah. ‘I think resisting social AO3 influence depends much more on the presence of others.’ Discuss two explanations of resistance to social influence. As part of your discussion, refer to the views expressed by Jack and Sarah in the conversations above. [16 marks] [AL Specimen 1st set] 30  AO1: Minority Influence Psychologists have identified different factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority. CONSISTENCY When people are first exposed to a minority position, they may assume the minority is wrong. It is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form that minority. It is effective because it draws attention to the minority view and may get the majority to reassess the situation and rethink their own views. This can lead to the majority thinking deeply, leading to cognitive conflict and over time internalisation of the minority’s views. COMMITMENT Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, cause or activity e.g. by making personal sacrifices (augmentation principle) or by engaging in extreme activities that are at some risk to the minority. The more this is shown by the minority, the more influential the minority would be. It is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest which means they are taken more seriously. FLEXIBILITY Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be interpreted negatively. Relentless consistency can be seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. This is off-putting to the majority and is unlikely to result is any conversions to the majority position. It is effective as it shows the majority that by being flexible, they are willing to listen and adapt their point of view. This ability to compromise makes the majority more sympathetic to their cause. If the minority is flexible, they are more likely to be seen as a potential for serious change. All three of these factors make people think about the topic. Overtime, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position. They have become converted. The more that this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. This is called the snowball effect. Gradually the minority view has become the majority view and change has occurred. 31 Research Support- Research to support the effectiveness of a minority comes from Moscovici et al (1969). Moscovici et al found in a laboratory experiment with female participants, that when there were two confederates being consistent when estimating the colour of slides, the real participants agreed with the minority on 8.42% of the trials (i.e. they said the slides were green), whereas when the four confederates were inconsistent, only 1.25% of the participant’s answers were green. In a Control group (with no confederates) only 0.25% of the participants’ answers were green. This research therefore suggests that a consistent minority opinion has a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion, demonstrating that consistency is a key element in minority influence. Supporting research for flexibility – There is research to support the idea that flexibility together with consistency aid minority influence. Nemeth (1986) created groups of three participants and one confederate who had to decide how much compensation to pay a victim of a ski lift accident. When a consistent confederate argued for a low amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect on the majority. However, when he compromised a little and suggested a slightly higher amount, the majority changed their opinion to the lower amount. This shows minorities have to also be flexible to be persuasive. This therefore offers support for the idea that the most successful approach would appear to be a balance between consistency and flexibility. Validity- A limitation of the research support for minority influence is that it has been criticised for lacking external validity. Both Moscovici and Nemeth’s research lack ecological validity as the research took place in a lab, therefore we need to be careful when we generalise these findings to real life minority influence. In addition, Moscovici’s research lacks population validity as the sample consisted of only female undergraduates. This is a biased sample, and we may question how far the results of minority influence research can be generalised to the wider population. As there are issues with the supporting research for minority influence, caution must be taken with the validity of minority influence as a form of social influence. Identification is also important for minority influence - There may be other factors as well as consistency, commitment and flexibility that may affect minority influence. When a majority identifies with the minority, then the minority will be more persuasive in getting the majority to convert to their viewpoint. For example, if the minority consisted solely of males it would be more persuasive in converting the beliefs and behaviours of other males that females. Mass et al., (1982) had a minority arguing for homosexual rights to a heterosexual majority. They found that if the minority were homosexual, they were less persuasive in changing majority heterosexual opinions than if the minority were also heterosexual. This is because the heterosexual majority identified with the heterosexual minority, making them more persuasive and therefore had a greater influence. This suggests that other factors such as identification also need to be considered when investigating minority influence. 32  Possible Exam Questions 1. Which of the following terms best describes commitment? [1 mark] [Staff created question] AO1 A.​ A willingness to change perspective or compromise on something that you believe in. B.​ Looking to others for how to behave due to the need to be right in the current situation. C.​ A group of people sharing the same views over a period of time. D.​ When a person holds a strong belief, they may make a personal sacrifice to bring about change. 2. Outline how flexibility and consistency may contribute to social change. [4 marks] [Unknown] AO1 3. In a sixth form debating society, Samina is the only student in a group of six who does not AO2 believe that drugs should be legalised. Using your knowledge of minority influence processes, explain two ways in which Samina could convince the other students in the debating society to agree with her. [4 marks] [AL 2020] 4. Jenny is a psychology teacher who works with six other teachers in the department. Jenny AO2 believes strongly that homework should not be graded as it distracts students from reading verbal feedback on their work. She would like her colleagues to stop grading work. The other members of the department do not agree but have told Jenny they are willing to have a meeting about it. Using your knowledge of minority influence, explain how Jenny might be able to persuade the rest of the department to accept her view. [6 marks] [AL 2018] 5. Briefly evaluate research into minority influence. [4 marks] [Staff created question] AO3 6. Outline and discuss how consistency and commitment might contribute to minority influence. AO1 [8 marks] [AS 2019] AO3 33  AO1: The role of social influence processes in explaining social change Social change occurs when society or sections of society adopt a new belief or way of behaving which becomes widely accepted as the norm. Social Change occurs at a society level NOT an individual level. Social Change through Minority Influence How does the minority convert the majority? If certain conditions exist and the minority is persuasive then, according to Moscovici, conversion can take place, and this is necessary for social change to occur. The process of social change is influenced by minorities-Black lives matter example: DRAWING ATTENTION TO AN ISSUE In 2016, Colin Kaepernick started to protest Minorities can bring about social change by against police brutality towards black people, drawing the attention of the majority to an and worked to come up with an effective way issue. to voice the protest. –This was to take a knee, instead of standing for the national anthem. This soon made national news. COGNITIVE CONFLICT Minorities challenge the majority’s cognitions, Now that Colin had drawn attention to the so they think more deeply about the issue being issue, this began to make people think more challenged. and question how black people are treated by the police. Other players also started to take the knee. CONSISTENCY OF THE POSITION Moscovici’s research showed that minorities The protest by NFL players was consistent over expressing a consistent argument, both between 2-3 years, and the larger protests linked with themselves and over time have more influence the black lives matter protests are still ongoing over the majority. and have been consistent in its protests and impact. 34  AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE After Colin took the knee, he lost his career, he If the minority is willing to suffer for their views, has never been signed by another NFL team they are seen as more committed and will be since. In the weeks following initially taking the taken more seriously by the majority. knee, he also received death threats. For the black lives matter movement, large numbers of people took to the streets, taking huge risks during the pandemic to protest against police brutality towards black people. SNOWBALL EFFECT Minorities gather support gradually over time Over the past few years more and more people and their influence converts more and more until have questioned and protested against it reaches the tipping point where social change treatment of black people, and black lives occurs. matter protests have been seen all around the globe. SOCIAL CHANGE OCCURS At this stage social cryptoamnesia may exist, Sadly, with the black lives matter movement we whereby society ‘knows’ social change has are not there yet. occurred but forgets the origins of it and so the We are currently living in a social change and it majority does not give credit to the minority for is still ongoing. the change taking place. 35  AO1 Other Explanations for Social Change ​ Informational Social Influence (ISI) Social change can come about through informational social influence and providing arguments and information in favour of views. ISI is when individuals may not necessarily know the right way to behave and turn to others who they believe to be correct. Social change is encouraged by the attempt to gain information. ISI therefore takes longer to effect change as it requires time for people to question and examine their own beliefs, and therefore leads to internalisation of beliefs both privately and publicly and is usually permanent. This is unlike NSI influence which is based on compliance and causes more instant conformity. An example of ISI is that now more is known about the harmful effects of smoking; young people may have become convinced by such evidence, and a social change has occurred. ​ Disobedient models- A disobedient individual can act as a role model to demonstrate to others in society about how to resist the pressure to obey and instigate social change. The obedience rates in Milgram’s research fell when a disobedient model refused to give shocks in the variation of the original experiment. This opens the way for social change to occur at a society level. Another example of this is Rosa Parks who sat in an area at the front of a bus reserved for white people. This act of disobedience served to highlight racial inequality in the USA and was her example that many others followed. ​ Normative Social Influence (NSI) this is where information is provided about what the majority are doing, and the social change is encouraged by the exposure to this majority behaviour. This is a technique used by health and environmental campaigns; it makes positive use of our tendency to conform to the majority. An example of this is Linkenback and Perkins (2003) who found adolescents exposed to a simple message that the majority of their peers did not smoke were subsequently less likely take up smoking. In other words, social change is encouraged by highlighting what the majority actually do, rather than what others think they do and then the others alter their own behaviour to fit in with the behaviour of peers. 36 AO3: Evaluation of Social Influence Processes in Explaining Social Change Additional Research Evidence - Research shows that it is not just minority influence which can bring about social change, conformity can also lead to social change through the process of normative social influence. US research has shown the relationship between people’s normative beliefs and the likelihood of them taking up smoking. Linkenback and Perkins (2003) found that adolescents exposed to the simple message that the majority of their peers did not smoke were subsequently less likely to take up smoking. Normative social influence has also been used successfully to manipulate people to behave more responsibly when it comes to energy conservation. For example, Schultz et al (2008) found that hotel guests exposed to the normative message that 75% of guests reused their towels each day reduced their own towel use by 25%. Therefore, it is important to understand that it is not only minority influence which brings about social change, but majority influence can also be useful too. Validity - One limitation of using social influence processes to explain historical social changes is temporal validity. The social changes that are cited and discussed in relation to social influence are historical, with some occurring many years ago. The historical context of the event should be considered when examining the social change or the explanation could lack temporal validity. Furthermore, our knowledge of the events involved in the social change is derived from recollections and secondary documents such as diaries and newspapers. The retrospective data from historical evidence cannot always be verified as valid or accurate. For example, Rosa Parks is credited as the first African American woman to stand up to racial segregation in the US. However, nine months before Parks was jailed, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin was the first Montgomery bus passenger to be arrested for refusing to give up her seat for a white passenger. Therefore, when using social influence processes to explain social change it is essential to consider the validity of the historical sources in question. Methodological Weaknesses of underpinning Social Influence Research – explanations of how social influence leads to social change is largely underpinned by the research studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram, who conducted famous laboratory experiments into minority influence, conformity and obedience. These were all early examples of highly controlled pieces of scientific research with human participants. However, the methodology used in these pieces of research, were artificial and did not reflect real life behaviour (they lack mundane realism) therefore, its usefulness in explaining social change is under scrutiny. When using social influence processes to explain social change, it is important to carefully consider any methodological issues with the underpinning research. Limitation of Using Social Influence Research to explain social change - Nemeth (1986) argues that the effects of minority influence are likely to be delayed and indirect. There is a strong tendency in human behaviour to conform to the majority position, groups are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than to involve themselves in social change. It has taken many 37 decades for the attitudes to change regarding drink driving and smoking. Additionally, the black lives matter campaign officially began in July 2013, and is still ongoing. Awareness has been created, however social change has not yet occurred in all areas of society, as we still have examples of discrimination. In years to come campaigners hope to see the change has fully occurred. It can be argued that the influence of the minority group is latent rather than direct, it creates the potential for change rather than the actual change itself. Therefore, it is important to not overstate the role of minority influence in explaining social change. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Possible Exam Questions ​ ​ 1. In the context of social influence, explain what is meant by social change. [2 marks] [Unknown AO1 source] 2. Using an example, explain the role of social influence processes in social change. [6 marks] AO1 [Unknown source] 3. Fewer and fewer people use single-use plastic items, such as water bottles and plastic straws. AO2 Using your knowledge of social influence processes in social change, explain why fewer and fewer people are using single-use plastic items. [6 marks] [AL 2021] 4. Read the item and then answer the question that follows. AO2 The following article appeared in a newspaper: Britain’s views on homosexuality – the biggest social change of the last 30 years? In the UK, views on homosexuality have changed significantly in recent times. Thirty years ago, almost two-thirds of the British public opposed same-sex relationships because they were ‘morally wrong’. These days, homosexuality is accepted and the majority of British people support recent changes to the laws on gay marriage and adoption. With reference to the article above, explain how social influence leads to social change. [6 marks] [AS Specimen 1st Set] 5. In 1987, a survey of 1000 young people found that 540 said they smoked cigarettes, whilst 460 AO3 said they did not. In 2017, a similar survey of another 1000 young people found that 125 said they smoked cigarettes, whilst 875 said they did not. The survey shows that fewer young people are smoking today than in 1987. Using your knowledge of social influence processes in social change, explain possible reasons for this change in behaviour. [6 marks] [AL 2019] 6. Discuss the role of social influence processes in social change. [16 marks] [Unknown source] AO1 AO3 38