Social Influence

• Resistance to social influence - Social Support

  Resistance refers to the ability of people to withstand the pressure to conform or obey. One way we can resist is with the help of social support in the form of allies. Asch found that when given an ally who gave the correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%. Milgram found that when disobedient confederates were with the ppt obedience dropped to 10%. However, this does not consider dispositional factors such as locus of control.
• Resistance to social influence - Locus of Control

  Refers to a person’s perception of control over their behaviour. Someone who is an internal locus of control believes in their own ability, they are more likely to be a leader and not seek social approval – so more likely to resist social influence. Oliner and Oliner found that non-Jewish Germans who rescued Jewish people during through Nazi Germany had a high internal locus of control compared to those who did not rescue the Jewish people. However, this does not consider situational factors such as social support.
• Minority Influence

  Minority influence is where an individual or small group of

  people can influence the majority. There are three key factors

  that the minority need to consider: Consistency – if they remain stable in their argument over time. Commitment – they need to show that they are willing to fight for their point of view, that they are dedicated and willing to make a personal sacrifice (augmentation principle). Flexibility – this is where they cannot appear dogmatic in their views they need to be willing to compromise and negotiate.
• Evidence for minority influence

  Moscovici - Aim: to investigate the role of consistency in minority influence. Procedure: 32 groups of 6 pps (all women and 4 real and 2 confederates) shown 36 clue slides of varying brightness. Consistent condition confederates answered green on all. Inconsistent condition answered green 24 and blue 12. Findings: Consistent condition pps agreed on 8.2% of the trials / Inconsistent condition pp’s agreed on 1.25% of the trials. Conclusion: a consistent minority is more effective at convincing a majority than an inconsistent minority.
• Evidence for minority influence

  Nemeth - Aim: to investigate the role of flexibility in minority influence. Procedure: pps in groups of four (one confederate) had to agree the amount of compensation a victim would get for a ski-lift accident. Inflexible argued for a low rate and refused to change. Flexible argued for a low rate but compromised and offered a slightly higher rate. Findings: In the flexible condition the minority had some effect over the majority as they were more likely to compromise. Conclusion: shows flexibility is important in minority influence.
• Evaluation of research into minority influence

  Moscovici used all females which means it is gynocentric, so the research conclusions may not be reflective of minority influence in males. Also it was an artificial task as judging the colour of a slide is not reflective of real life minority influence. Both of these studies require tasks that are not a serious issue and so may only be reflective of minority influence in certain situations, we accept dissent on the surface but will quite quickly become annoyed by it.
• Social change

  There are lots of social influence processes that can be used in a social change question the key is applying it to the STEM! Social influence processes have played a role in causing social change where a whole society have changed in views and attitudes on homosexuality. Firstly, gay rights activists (originally a minority group) have brought about this change by showing commitment (through persistent campaigns), consistency (through repetitive messages on acceptance) and flexibility (by making small requests in stages and accepting the fact the move to equality will be slow).
• Social change

  Secondly, obedience is a process that has enabled this change. The law changed with regards to homosexual relationships. As we are socialised to recognise and obey authority, then changing the law caused more people to adopt these positive attitudes. Finally, this change came about through the process of informational social influence. People conform to the majority in order to be right. It has become widely accepted that same sex relationships are a natural and healthy part of life. Others have internalised these ideas and changed their attitude towards homosexuality.