influence + change

• Resistance to social influence


  Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational + dispositional factors
• Social support 


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


  • By someone not following the majority is social support - enables the naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience
  • Confederate - acts as a 'model' of independent behavior - their dissent gives rise to more dissent - the majority is no longer unanimous
• Resisting obedience

  • Milgram's variations (disobedient confederate) - the rate of obedience dropped 65% to 10%
  • The disobedient confederate acts as a 'model' of dissent for the pps to copy + free them to act on their own conscience
• Locus of control


  • internal control VS external control
  • internal - things that happen are largely controlled by themselves
  • e.g. did well in exam = worked hard
  • external - things that happen are outside their control
  • e.g. didn't do well in exam = having a bad textbook
• The LOC continuum

  Locus of control - a scale: high internal LOC -- high external LOC

  Low internal + low external lie in-between
• Resistance to social influence - in depth

  • High internal LOC - more able to resist pressures to conform/obey
  • By taking personal responsibility for actions + experiences - tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on others
  • OR High internal LOC - self confident, more achievement-oriented + higher intelligence --> greater resistance to social influence
  • also characteristics of leaders - less need for social approval
• EVAL: Real-world research support - social support

  P: one strength is the research evidence for the positive effects of social support

  E: Susan Albrecht et al (2006) - Teen Fresh Start USA (8 week program) to help pregnant adolescents (14-19) to resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support provided by older menter/'buddy'

  Findings: Those who had a 'buddy' sig less likely to smoke than control group of pps (didn't have 'buddy')

  L: social support helps young p resist social influence
• Research for dissenting peers 


  P: A strength is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience

  E: William Gamson et al (1982) - pps told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign

  Findings: pps were in groups - discussions happen. 29 out 33 groups of pps (88%) rebelled against orders

  L: Peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
• EVAL: Research support

  P: a strength is research evidence to support the link between LOC + resistance to obedience

  E: Charles Holland (1967) - repeats Milgram baseline study + measured if pps were internal/external

  Findings: 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock lvl (showed some resistance), 23% of externals did not continue - internals showed greater resistance to authority in this type of situation

  L: Resistance is partly related to LOC, increases validity of LOC - explanation of obedience
• EVAL: Contradictory Research - LOC + resistance

  P: one limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC + resistance

  E: Jean Twenge et al (2004) - analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40 year period (1960-2002)

  Findings: over time span people become more resistant to obedience BUT more external - resistance is usually linked to internal LOC

  L: suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence
• Minority influence


  Form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviors through ISI --> internalisation or conversion (private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviors)

  The opposite to conformity (majority influencing)
• Minority influence - Moscovici 1969


  • Six people asked to view a set of 36 blue-colored slides that varied in intensity + then state whether slides were blue or green
  • Each had 2 confeds - consistently said slides were green
  • True pps gave same wrong answer (green) on 8.42% of the trials - agreed with the confeds
  • 2nd group - inconsistent minority - green 24 times, blue 12 times -Agreement to green fell to 1.25%
  • 3rd group (control) - no confeds, pps just had to identify the color of each slide - got this wrong on just 0.25% of the trials
• 3 ways of convincing the minority influence

  1. Consistency - e.g. repeating the same message of how it would be great to go travelling
  2. Commitment - e.g. how he is taking the time to plan the trip
  3. Flexibility - e.g. listen to others opinions + agree to go on a beach holiday after the travelling trip
• Consistency

  • Consistent over time - over time consistency inc the amount of interest from people
  • Synchronic consistency - all saying the same thing
  • Diachrinoic consistency - they've been saying the same thing for some time
  • Makes them rethink their own views
• Commitment

  • Minority must demonstrate commitment
  • Engage in extreme activities to draw attention - minority must be at some risk - shows a greater commitment + dedication - they are not acting out of self-interest
  • So majority pays attention
  • Augmentation principle
• Flexibility

  • Charlan Nemeth (1986) - consistency is NOT the only important factor, counterproductive - people may see that as rigid, unbending, dogmatic
  • Minority should understand the majorities point of view + accept reasonable + valid counterargument
• Explaining the process of change


  • Consistency + commitment + flexibility = deeper processing - important for the process of 'conversion' to a diff viewpoint
  • Over time more and more may become 'converted' - switch from majority to minority
  • The more this happens --> faster rate of conversion (Snowball effect)
• EVAL: Research support for consistency (Minority influence)


  P: Research evidence demonstrating importance of consistency

  E: Moscovici et al's - blue/green slide study - consistent min opinion had greater effect on changing views of others who had inconsistent opinion

  E: Wendy Wood (1994) - meta analysis of almost 100 similar cases - consistent minorities = most influential

  L: Presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for min influencing the majority
• EVAL: Research support for deeper processing 


  P: A change in the majority's position involves deeper processing of min's ideas

  E: Robin Martin et al (2003) - presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint + measured pps agreements. 1st group heard the minority agree with initial view. 2nd heard the majority agree. They are then exposed to a conflicting view + measure attitudes again.

  F: People less willing to change if listened to min than the maj

  L: Suggests minority message more deeply processed + more enduring effect - supports the central idea of how minority influence works
• EVAL: Counterpoint to research support for deeper processing


  P: Studies like Martin et al's - makes clear distinctions between majority + minority BUT real-world social influence situations are much more complicated.

  E: majorities usually have more power + status than minorities. Minorities are v committed to their causes - often face very hostile oppositions.

  E: These features are usually absent from min influence research - minority is simply the smallest group

  L: Martin's findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority in real-world situations
• Social change 


  Occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs + ways of doing things. e.g. women's suffrage, gay rights + environmental issues

  • A change that happens in a society and not an individual level
• Lessons from conformity research

  • Asch's study - highlights the importance of dissent --> social change
  • Environmental + health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI - provide info on what people are doing e.g. reducing litter by printing normative messages on litter bins ("Bin. it - others do") + telling young people to not smoke
• Lessons from obedience research

  Zimbardo - suggets obedience can be used to create social change through process of gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed - becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one.