Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence (MINORITY INFLUENCE = a type of social influence that…

- - - - MOSCOVICI- 2 confederates who acted as the minority influence and 4 real pps who were the majoirty. they were shown blue slides of varying shades and they had to say out loud what colour they see- found that when confederates were consistent and gave the wrong answer- 8.2% of the pps agreed- but when the confederates were inconsistent in their answers so would sometimes say it was blue and then say it was green- only 1.25% pps agreed
        
        EVALUATION OF MOSCOVICI STUDY
        
        Consistent minorities have more influence on private attitudes- separate experiment when pps gave answers privately in consistent conditions- was even more agreement
        
        only used female pps- so not generalisable to males- and females conform more
        
        unethical- involves deceit - informed consent couldnt be given. pps may have experienced mild stress
        
        study doesnt identity important factors in minority influence like group size, status etc
        
        Meyers supported this- found minority groups more effective when more consistent
    - - NEMATH= when the confederate (the minority) was rigid and inflexible about paying a low amount of compensation to a victim of a ski lift accident - the 3 real pps were not persuaded. BUT when the confederate was more reasonable and discussed paying a higher amount, the real pps agreed with the original low amount.
  - - - THE GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUP IN CANADA= at first it was a minority group and was made fun of -then through minority influence- the group started to gain power and become more popular and now it is the mainstream voice for environmentalist issues
    - - HEWSTONE, MARTIN AND MARTIN= got students who orignically supported euthanasia to listen to an argument against it supported by either a majoirty or minority influence and then were given an argument supporting euthaniasia either supported by the majority or minority influence. Found that when the 1st argument was supported by the minority influence, the students were resistant to change their view after hearing the second argument than if it was supported by the majority influence
- - - - DISSENT- going against the majority- so if you are a dissenter then you encourage others to also go against the majority - ASCH found that if there is a dissenter who answers correctly from the start of the study, then conformity drops to 5.5% - but if confederate only starts to dissent later on - then confomity drops to 8.8%- so suggests that social support is more effective earlier on
      - DISOBEDIENT MODELS- resisting obedience - if someone disobeys an authoritative figure then it encourages others to do the same. once there are disobedient models then conformity will start to kick in and a minority group will form. E.G for milgrams variations- when 2 confederates disobeyed obedience levels decreased to 10%
    - - INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL = individual believe that things happen because of their own decisions and choices e.g grades in exams- rotter suggested that people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist social influence because they feel as though they have a free choice whether to conform or to obey
      - EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL = belief that things happen as a result of luck, fate or other uncontrollable external forces
      - RESEARCH ON LOCUS OF CONTROL and CONFORMITY
        
        SPECTOR gave Rotters locus of control to uni students and found that the students with a high external locus of control conformed more than students with low external locus of control- but only because of normative social influence- not with informational social influence- so suggests people who dont care about fitting in are more likely to resist social influence
        
        Research found cultural differences- Japanese people conform more and have a higher external locus of control than American people
      - RSEARCH ON LOCUS OF CONTROL AND OBEDIENCE
        
        HOLLAND found no relationship between locus of control and obedience
        
        BUT Blass found that people with an internal locus of control resisted obedience more- especially if the researcher was trying to manipulate them or force them to do something
        
        Research found no relationship between locus of control and obedience in Austrian pps- but found that people who have an internal locus of control tended to take more responsibility for their actions.
    - - REACTANCE - when freedom of choice is restricted and the person rebels and responds with anger
      - IRONIC DEVIANCE- if the truthfulness of a source of informational social influence is doubted then confomity to the guidance given is lessened
      - STATUS= people with a low status in a group- so newcomers are more likely to conform as they want to get higher status
        
        RICHARDSON STUDY = found that the real participants who thought that they were newcomers to a group of confederates conformed to an obvious wrong choice in choosing the best company - as the confederates were perceived as having a higher status
  - - - Martin found that when pps were encouraged and allowed to think about the unreasonable order- they were less likely to obey
    - - In Milgram' study one pp who didnt fully obey said in the interview afterwards that the reason he didnt was because he was a vicar and his religious morality had helped him resist obedience to deliver 'shocks'
    - - Research found that those who helped shelter the Jews during Nazi germany resisted obedience because they had been brought up in an environment where the social norms were helping others.
- - - - LOCATION= when location of study moved from yale uni to a run down building obedience levels decreased to 47.5%.
      - PROXIMITY= when teacher and learner in the same room- obedience levels decreased to 40%
      - when assistants pressed the switches for the pps- obedience levels increased to 92% - because didnt see it as their responsibility
      - DISOBEDIENT MODELS= when 2 confederates refused to give shocks obedinece levels decreased to 10%
    - - WEAKNESSES
        
        UNETHICAL= pps under extreme pressure - some were sweating and trembling- pay have felt induced to take part as they were paid - so lack of right to withdraw as felt that they had to finish. lack of informed consent told it was about punishment and learning. deception was also involved as they thought they were giving the pps real electric shocks. also the researcher encouraged the teachers to carry on.
        
        ANDROCENTRIC= only males took part - findings couldnt be generalised to females and research shows that females are more obedient than males
        
        CULTURAL BIAS= only done in America- cant be generalised to other cultures- especially because America in 60s = very authortarian and very obedient- whereas in Australia- have negative view of authority figures so had a lot lower obedience levels
        
        Has been criticised for having demand characteristics
      - STRENGTHS
        
        although it has been criticised for having demand characteristics- in an interview after the study 75% of pps thought that the shocks they were giving were real
        
        has become the paradigm study for obedience- is the standardised procedure- easily replicated o produce reliable results
        
        can be seen as more ethical because he had a debriefing after the study- where 83% of the pps said that they are glad that they took part
        
        PRACTICAL APPLICATION= HOFLINGS STUDY- 95% of nurses obeyed who they thought was a doctor on giving a patient an unknown substance