resistance and minority influence

• independent behaviour is when people withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. The ability is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors
• Social support (situational) examples

  Asch -shows that if there is a dissenter then conformity drops. This is because there is someone who is not following the majority, offers social support. Allows real pp to be free to follow their own conscience. However, if the dissenter started to conform then the pp would also so the change is short lived.

  Milgrams variation- two of three teachers were confederates and would refuse to continue shocking the learner. Their defiance had a liberating effect on the pp with only 10% continuing to 450v. Acted as a model for pp to copy and make own decisions.
• real world research supports the positive effects of social support. Albrecht et al evaluated teen fresh start USA which helped pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoking. Social support was provided by peer mentor. It was found the adolescent who has a mentor were significantly less likely to smoke. Suggesting that social support can help young people resist social influences as part of an intervention in the real world.
• Gamson et al provides evidence to support the role of dissenters in resisting obedience. Pp were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. The researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram. This was probably due to pp being in groups so they can discuss. 29/33 groups rebelled against orders. This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
• Locus of control refers to how much control a person feels they have in their own behaviour.

  ~They either have internal or external and it is measured by a continuum of high internal to high external LOC.

  High internal= take responsibility for behaviour

  High external= percieve their behaviour as a result of other factors such as luck.
• High ILOC seek more information before they obey and dont rely on opinions. Where as high ELOC have no control over themselves so they feel they have to obey.
• There is research evidence supporting internal LOC. Oliner et al interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people who had lived through the holocaust and Nazi Germany . They compared 406 people who had protected rescued Jews and 126 who had not. The researchers found that the group who had rescued the Jews had scores demonstrating an internal LOC. This suggests that resistance to obedience is related to LOC.
• There is empirical support for the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Holland et al replicated Milgrams study and measured whether people had high internal or external LOC. Found that 37% of internals did not continue with shocks up to 450v where as only 23% of externals did not continue. This shows that resistance is partly related to LOC increasing the validity of LOC as an explanation for disobedience.
• minority influence is a form of social influence where a minority can persuade others to change their beliefs, attitudes, behaviours.
• Main processes involve

  Consistency- Overtime the minority's view will attract interest from other groups if they remain consistent.

  Commitment- sometimes minorities engage in extreme actions in order to draw attention

  Flexibility- inflexibility can be seen as extremist so compromise is reasonable and people are more likely to engage with people
• Moscovici's blue-green slides. In a study where a group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then stated whether the slides were blue or green. 2 confederates in each group said that the slides were green, so 8.42% of the pp said it was also green. A second group of pp were exposed to inconsistent minority( confederates said green 24 times and then blue 12 times). Pp agreements decreased to 1.25%. A control group with 0 confederates only got answer wrong on 0.25% of the trials. Shows that consistency can affect conformity to MI
• Synchronic consistency= several people saying the same at the same time

  Diachronic= same view over a period of time
• Snowball effect= MI progressively affect behaviour or attitude change in the population after a certain point it technically becomes majority influence and eventually most of the population is brought around to the new view
• there is research evidence demonstrating the importance of consistency through Moscovicis study demonstrating the effect of MI. This suggests that presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority influencing a majority.
• There is research support for deeper processing. Martin 2003, measured pp views on forced euthanasia. Pp exposed to two different view points, one group being the majority and the other minority. When heard either argument they were asked if they changed their view. Pp who heard minority view were less likely to change their opinion. This demonstrates that the minority message had to be more deeply processed and had more of an enduring effect (systematic processing).
• One limitation of MI research is that he tasks involved are artificial. Moscovici tasks were mundane lacked realism. Often minority groups attempt to influence on huge issues (religioon,race,) with a life or death impact. Research lacks this which then impacts on the external validity and the findings. This means findings of MI studies are limited in what they tell us about the real world social situations.