social influence and social change

• lessons from MI research = segregation in 1950s America (1/2)

  • drawing attention = places such as certain schools and restaurants in the southern states were exclusive to whites
  • civil rights marches drew attention to the situation by providing social proof of the problem
  • consistency = people took part in the marches on a large scale
  • even though it was a minority of the American population, they displayed consistency of message and intent
  • deeper processing = this activism meant that many people who had accepted the status quo began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it
• lessons from MI research = segregation in 1950s America (2/2)

  • augmentation principle = 'freedom riders' were both white as well as black people who boarded buses in the south to challenge separate seating for black people
  • many were beaten, the personal risk strengthened (augmented) their message
  • snowball effect = civil rights activists (eg MLK) gradually got the attention of the US government
  • 1964 = Civil rights act was passed
  • social cryptomnesia = social change came about but some people have no memory (cryptomnesia) of the events leading to that change
• lessons from conformity research

  • dissenters make social change more likely:
  • Asch's research = variation where one confederate always gave correct answers
  • this broke the power of majority, encouraging others to dissent = demonstrates potential for social change
  • normative social influence:
  • environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI
  • they provide information about what others are doing
  • eg reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins ('bin it - others do')
• lessons from obedience research

  • disobedient models make change more likely:
  • Milgram's research = disobedient models in the variation where a confederate refused to give shocks
  • rate of obedience in genuine participants plummeted
  • gradual commitment leads to 'drift':
  • Zimbardo = once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one
  • people 'drift' into a new kind of behaviour
• strength = support for normative influence in social change

  • Nolan et al = hung messages on front doors of houses
  • key message = most residents are trying to reduce energy usage
  • significant decreases in energy use compared to control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other people's behaviour
  • shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI
• counterpoint to NSI support

  • exposing people to social norms doesn't always change their behaviour
  • Foxcroft et al = reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake
  • there was only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency
  • shows that NSI doesn't always produce long-term social change
• strength = MI influence explains social change

  • Nemeth = says that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking
  • this thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems
  • shows that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people's minds
• limitation = deeper processing may apply to majority influence

  • Mackie = disagrees with the view that MI causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue
  • majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do
  • when a majority thinks differently, this creates pressure to think about their views
  • => a central element of MI has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change
• extra evaluation = barriers to social change

  • the steps involved in the process of social change provide practical advice for minorities wanting to influence a majority (eg be consistent)
  • even so = majorities still often resist change because they find the minorities unappealing (eg 'tree-huggers')
  • BUT = Bashir et al claims even this can be counteracted
  • this shows that MI research does provide practical applications that eventually influence majorities to change