“SOCIAL INFLUENCE”

 Types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.

 Explanations for conformity: informational social influence and
normative social influence, and variables affecting conformity including
group size, unanimity and task difficulty as investigated by Asch.
 Conformity to social roles as investigated by Zimbardo.
 Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority,
and situational variables affecting obedience including proximity,
location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram.
 Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.
 Explanations of resistance to social influence, including social support
and locus of control.
 Minority influence including reference to consistency, commitment and
flexibility.
 The role of social influence processes in social change

http://illuminate.digital/aqapsych1/
username: wrekincollege password: student

Types of conformity, including Internalisation & Compliance

What is Conformity? (Definition) A change in behaviour or belief (thinking)
in response to real or imagined group pressure. There is no direct order to change from
other members of the group.

What are the main types of conformity?

1) Compliance Is a shallow & temporary form of conformity. Here the person agrees
(conforms) in public (out loud) with the views or behaviours given by others in the group, but
continues to privately disagree. The change in behaviour does not last long, when the group is no
longer present and the pressure is removed they behaviour stops.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Identification Is a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way a
the group because we identify (see ourselves) as wanting to be part of the group because we value
it. BUT we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority of members believe / do.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Internalisation Is the deepest form of conformity. Here the person listens to the
views of the group (which does not happen in the others), and if we accept the ideas as correct we
accept them and make them our own (internalise them, at a deep and permanent level). They
become part of the person’s new way of viewing the world so they carry on with them when in
private and the group pressure is removed.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Some real world examples of conformity

1) Compliance
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Identification
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Internalisation
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Explanations for (why) conformity, including informational,
normative social influence & conforming to roles.
1) Normative social Influence = Conform to fit in, be normal and not the odd
one out. Humans are sociable ‘beings’ and want to be accepted and so look to others to see what is an acceptable
way to behave. [Normative Influence – is usually linked with compliance, i.e. change to behave like the group, but
‘deep down’ your thinking doesn’t change]

2) Informational social Influence = Conform to be ‘right’, and to have

accurate judgements or behave in the correct way. Here conformity occurs because you believe others to have
superior knowledge or judgements, so we think they can give us the info we need to be ‘right’. Most likely to
happen if the situation is unclear, new, a crisis or if others are seen as experts! [Informational –usually linked with
internalisation, listening to others changes peoples thinking]

Evidence for Normative Influence – Asch’s

experiments strongly support NSI as an explanation for conformity, 75% of P’s
conformed to the groups answers and later many said they knew they were
wrong answers but “wanted to fit in”, backed up by a large drop in incorrect
answers when they had the chance to give answers in private (writing it down
lowered conformity).

Cillesen (2006) provides evidence that wanting to fit in can create issues of
bullying in schools, he found examples where a skilful bullies influenced a group of friends so
creating pressure to join in the bullying in order to fit in. The group as a whole bully a victim,
even when some members of the group would never be insulting when they were on their own.

However, we should be careful to consider that there is evidence that NSI does not affect
everyone equally – with some people being less concerned with being liked being less affected
by pressure to join in with groups (McGee 1967)
Evidence for Informational Influence – Early evidence Jenness
(1932) showed people are more likely to conform to a group when tasks are difficult, finding P’s
estimates of how many Jelly Beans were in a jar was strongly influenced by previous guesses
on the page (which seemed real but were manipulated). This study shows the people conform
when they don’t know the answer, exactly as predicted by ISI because they look to other people
who they assume know more or might be right.
The same finding has been confirmed more recently by Lucas et al (2006) finding students who
were given maths problems either easy or hard in a group situation, showed greater conformity
to incorrect answers (given by confederates) when the maths problems were hard (this was
especially true for those students who rated themselves poor at maths ability)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
HOWEVER these explanations on their own are too simple –
when it comes to conformity there can be large individual differences For example, evidence has supported large
individual differences see research on Locus of Control (Oliner et al real life example of Germans) etc.

3) Conforming to social roles is also a type on conformity =

Social roles are ‘parts’ people play in everyday life, each has behaviour we expect from people doing this part e.g.
a nurse = friendly, a soldier - brave. It is proposed that when people are given a role e.g. be a nurse, they then start
acting in the ways they think are appropriate for that role. So they are changing (conforming) based on the ideas
they have picked up from parents, society, the movies etc.

Clear support for this idea comes from Zimbardo prison study, finding that despite
participants being given the role of guard or prisoner at random, after only a
few days their behaviour was greatly influenced.
 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES with conformity research
Evaluating research on conformity (majority) – is it valid (useful?)

1) Do studies have Experimental realism (internal validity?)

Does how the P’s behave INSIDE the study tell us anything useful?

There is the issue of internal validity, whether P’s believe the set up of conformity
experiments, and take it seriously, Or are they just playing along with the experiment.
Asch argued P’s did believe, and there was ‘experimental realism’, supporting his case
by asking P’s after the study. Such studies of conformity are useful because:
………………………………………………………………………………………….....................…….
………………………………………………………………………………………………......................
……………………………………………………………………………………………….......................
……………………………………………………………………………………………….......................
2) Does the research have ecological validity? Do the studies tell us much
about real life conformity? i.e can findings be generalised outside the study?

There are 2 issues to consider here. Firstly, that Asch’s experiments used tasks that have a clear
cut answer, (e.g. line length task). But in real life this is often not the case e.g. when it comes to
morals, or attitudes towards smoking – where there is no real answer. So we might argue such
studies (e.g. Asch) are not very useful for real life examples.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Methodological Issues (Problems) with doing lab studies:

“Outline Methodological issue with lab studies” (5 marks)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situational Variables in Obedience
 Obedience, including Milgram’s work and explanations of why people obey

Definition of obedience:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What are the differences between obedience & conformity?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

..Explanations of obedience
1) Legitimate Authority (social variable)
In society some people hold more social power than others, they are in positions of ‘legitimate authority’ to give orders
to those beneath them. From early childhood we learn to obey authorities in order to fit in.
Legitimate authority is the idea the authority figure is seen as trust worthy – we trust their right to give us orders.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2) Agentic State = Authority Figure takes responsibility (situational)

If the authority accepts responsibility for acts, then people may not feel as responsible for their actions, so are more
likley to obey orders they wouldn’t normally do. E.g. Milgrams P’s keep asking “who is responsible?” Milgram says the P’s
enter an “Agentic state” – which means they become like a robot, following orders without questioning.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A) The role of ‘Proximity’ (situational variable)

Proximity is an aspect of the situation that could prevent the person from seeing the consequences of their
actions (therefore obeying more).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

B) The role of ‘Location’ (situational variable)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

C) ‘Uniform’ (situational variable)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………\
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
EVALUATION of Explanations of why people obey

……………………………………………………………………………………………Supporting
the importance of Legitimate Authority
Milgram idea that P’s showed obedience because they trust the authority – “I was just
following orders”, is backed up by finding that obedience level fell from 65% down to
45% when the experiment was moved from Yale (posh university) to a run-down local
office. The suggestion is that the authority is less trusted (“legitimate”) and so there is
less obedience. ………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
Also, supporting LA = Hofling found the majority of nurses accepted an order
from an unknown doctor to give a drug overdose, because the doctors have “legit
authority” – i.e the nurses trust them. Adding to this, Bickam shows we trust
symbols of authority – were people on the streets of New York obeyed orders
from a stranger more if they were dressed as a guard, rather than in civilian
clothes.

Supporting the importance of Buffers in why people obey

When the proximity (closeness) of the victim was changed in
Milgram’s study the level of obedience was affected. When in
another room 65% showed full obedience (upto 450v), however
this dropped to 40% in same room, 30% went have to push hand
onto shock plate.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………......................................................................
..…
BUT explanations = TOO SIMPLE
Some argue that although LA & Buffers may well be important factors / explanations especially in
everyday life. They are not the only ones, and if we focus on them too much we ignore what has really
happened in some horrible real life examples.
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
....………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………

Dispositional Explanation for Obedience e.g. Authoritarian Personality

The Authoritarian Personality:

Whilst Milgam focused on situation factors explaining obedience, others focused on the
personality side claiming ‘too much obedience’ is actually a disorder (fascism).
.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Main study Adorno (1950)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Bullet point the main characteristic of an Authoritarian Personality:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Evaluation (Evidence) on The Authoritarian Personality:

.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Useful OBEDIENCE examples - Real Life & STUDIES
**My Lai Massacre (1968)
A small village in Vietnam where the civilians, mostly women and children were rounded up herded into a ditch
and shot. The US military had thought Viet Cong fighters were hiding out, but there were none. A senior officer
gave the order to kill all the women & kids, & the troops obeyed and in total more than 500 civilians were killed.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
** German Police Battalion 101
A police group operating in Poland during the war are thought to have rounded up and killed over 38’000
Jews over a 4 year period. These were ordinary men, neither were they big Nazi’s, nor were they trained
soldiers. For them 101 was not their normal life, they had other jobs. A famous example of Police 101 is
Jozefow (1942) (a small village in Poland of around 1800 Jews). In one day nearly all (1500) Jews were
murdered in some local woods. They were marched out group after group after group, and shot at point
blank range (face to face). Soldiers were given the chance to back out of the killings if they
wished with no punishment for doing so, few did!
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
** Jehovah’s witnesses in Nazi Germany JW’s were ordinary Germans (just part of a
religious group). At first they resisted the pressure to conform, and fit in with other Germans by supporting
the Nazi’s– even though this made them look ‘bad’ and made life harder for them. They were judged badly
for example, because they would not give the Nazi salute. LATER ON, when Nazi’s became more
powerful, they were ordered to obey & to give up their religious beliefs, join the military, help with war
and accept Hitler as their “supreme leader”. However, they resisted even when they were put into prisons,
had teeth pulled out, and we even killed. They would have been released if they just accepted Hitler!
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
OTHER RESEARCH STUDIES ON OBEDIENCE
Hofling et al. Obedience in a hospital
Nurses were instructed over the phone by someone calling themselves a doctor to give a particular
dosage of drug (Astroten) to a patient even though
* The rules were that instructions should not be accepted over the ‘phone
* The dosage prescribed was twice the maximum dose set out on the bottle:
…….. of the 22 nurses obeyed.
..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Bickman et al. Obedience on the streets of New York
A male researcher asked passers by in New York to carry out an unusual orders – pick up rubbish, stand
the other side of the bus stop, and lend money to a stranger. He was either dressed as a civilian or in
a guard’s uniform. He found, much more P’s (92%) obeyed the guard than civilian (42%).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES “VALIDITY” – what is it?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Evaluating VALIDITY of obedience research (is it useful?)

* Does the research have Realism (internal validity):
Critics of Milgram’s work (e.g. Orne) argue the research lacks realism
(internal validity) , because the P’s did not believe the experiments set up
(e.g that the shocks were real). They argue P’s were just playing along with
it all, so the study does not actually tell us anything useful / truthful about
obedience.
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

* Can the research be generalised (ecological validity):

The obvious and justified (fair) criticism is that Milgram’s experiment is so
extreme that it does not apply to everyday life (e.g. kids obeying teachers).
However, since then – other studies have shown Milgram’s ideas in everyday
examples of obedience e.g. Hofling (where nurses risked giving a possibly
dangerous drug to a patient), or Bickman who showed average New Yorkers
obeying a guard’s uniform.

Milgram argues his work applies and help us understand the

processes (factors) involved in real life atrocities such as ‘My Lai’
killings in Vietnam – which like in his study both involved ‘ordinary’
people doing extra ordinary things, following orders. That’s the
message of Milgram’s work that ordinary people are capable of
‘evil’ acts - given the right situation!

BUT does it really generalise

(apply?)
However, others have argued that obedience studies lack validity – and do not
generalise well because they do not apply to some important examples. Milgram’s P’s
excuse of “only following orders”, would be wrong to use in examples like:
………………………………………………………………………………………....…
……………………………………………………………………………………....……
……………………………………………………………………………………....……
…………………………………………………………………………………....………
…………………………………………………………………………………....………
…………………………………………………………………………………....………
…………………………………………………………………………………....………
…………………………………………………………………………………....………

“VALIDITY Issues” – what is it?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

External Validity reconsidered?

One of Milgram’s main claims, the is that his work help us
understand the steps involved in real life atrocities such as ‘My Lai’
killings in Vietnam: indeed both his study and My Lai both involved
‘ordinary’ people doing extra ordinary things, afterward claiming they
were just following orders (known as the obedience defence). That’s
the message of Milgram’s work, ordinary people are capable of ‘evil’
acts - given the right situation! HOWEVER, we must be very careful
how far we allow Milgram’s findings to be used, there are clear
examples from history like Police Battalion 101 operating in Poland,
they killed 40’000 Jews in 4 years (1’500 in one day in a village called
Jozefow). Yes, these were ordinary men (not professional soldiers)
but Milgram’s ideas are not VALID here – they don’t work! Because
there is clear evidence …………………………………………………
……………………………....….............................................................
......................………………………………………………………....……
......................………………………………………………………....……

Findings - - Milgram found the level of obedience was much higher than anyone expected
(prior to the study students and professionals predicted only around 1-3% of people would continue
to 450v, would be linked with problem personality type.
- HOWEVER, no participants stopped below 300v, 12.5% (12) stopped at 300v (intense shock), and
65% continued to the highest level of 450v.
- Qualitative data was also collected, such as observations and the Ps showed signs of extreme
tensions and stress, many were sent to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lip, groan (three even
had a seizure).
- All P’s were debrief afterwards, and explained their behaviour was entirely normal. There were
also sent a follow-up questionnaire, 84% reported they felt glad to have taken part.M
Suggests / Concludes - - Shows the power of the situation, how normal people can
do extreme acts when an authority figure provides orders. Raises questions as to how responsible
people are for their actions, even in extreme or ‘evil’ situations in history.
 F Explanations of resistance to social influence including
social support & locus of control & Loc
*1)Social Support (the role of others in resisting)
Social influence (conformity or obedience) exerts pressure on individuals to behave in certain
ways. If another person is seen to go against this pressure, this may give individuals more strength to
resist and not obey / conform. Others can act as role models to resist. (Allies are simply other resisters
who have same view as you).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Evaluation Social Support

......................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................

OTHERS YOU MIGHT FIND USEFUL IN SMALL QUESTIONS

1) Recognising own responsibility (Resisting OBEDIENCE). (If legitamate authority is one side of a coin
(“I trust authority”), the other side is “I am responsible” (I don’t trust this authority to give that order). So, if a person recognises
(thinks) they are responsible for their own actions then they will be less likely to obey, they won’t so easily accept the authority
persons order as trusthworthy (legit). E.g. In Milgram’s study, some people clearly say “I’m not hurting him”, “When I want to
stop, I will”, “I have the choice” – clearly language of a person who thinks they are responsible for what they do.

2 ) Education (Resisting BOTH)

Knowledge and understanding about the processes of conformity & obedience may enhance
people’s ability to resist. This is demonstrated by the US army who used Milgrams work (videos etc)
to teach army troops how to disobey illegal orders.
 Locus of control – extra add on

Furthermore, research also supports the idea that individuals with an internal
locus of control are less likely to conform. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of
control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity.
From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of
control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control,
but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to
be accepted. There was no difference between the two groups for informational
social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in,
is more power than informational social influence, the desire to be right, when
considering locus of control.
 Explanations of resistance to social influence including social
support & locus of control”

Locus of Control (LOC) by Rotter (1966)

LOC is a persons judgement (thinking) about the amount of personal control
they have over their behaviour, and events in their life. (We have seen similar
idea of control before, one of the 3 C’s of hardiness). LOC is measured on a
scale from ‘high internal’ to high external’.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Research / Evaluation on locus of control

 Oliner & Oliner supporting LOC is important. FOUND Germans who had gone
against the majority (and disobeyed) by protecting (hiding) the Jews during the holocaust
(i.e in the 1940’s), scored as more internal LOC than the average person. Supports
individual differences is important, that believing you have control over the events in your
life increases independent behaviour (resisting). However, issue is:
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Better Evidence comes from experiments. Milgram teamed up with Elms, using interviews
to test for LOC. Found the P’s who disobeyed more in Milgram’s shock experiments
(the ones who said no & did not go all the way to the end!), were often scored as more
internal locus of control.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
 HOWEVER, other research is not so clear! Others have investigated the importance of LOC in both conformity and
obedience studies, and found a person’s LOC did not affect how they behaved (if resisted). For example, William’s et al found
that P’s who resisted (did not conform) in their study were no different in their LOC scores than P’s that did. These studies
suggest maybe LOC is not as important as it first looks. However, it is possible that because LOC is difficult operationalise
(measure), studies have used different ways to measure it – perhaps this explains the different results.

In this topic, the danger (issue of validity) is that asking people about their thinking concerning LOC may cause
them to change it. [[Like if we wanted to watch the true behaviour of Lions in the wild, by watching them we may change how they behave
– so we don’t get true behavior.

Do page of
situational variables
 Minority Influence including reference to consistency, commitment and
flexibility. The role of social influence process in social change.
Social change = changes in society. New ideas and new behaviours becoming more popular. Social Influence = this is the
topic of the whole of this pack, the research and ideas we have done. In particular we need to focus on how minority influence
(a small group) creates changes in a larger group (majority); we need some research and examples to explain how it works.

The role of Minority Influence in change

Unlike majority influence, which maintains the status quo (keeps things the way
that everyone does it), minority influence brings about social change (new ideas).
If a minority is 1) consistent, 2) flexible and non-dogmatic (not simplistic), show
3) commitment they can challenge the beliefs held by the majority. Over time,
through the snowball effect the minority becomes the majority and their beliefs
become widely held. Sometimes, through social crypto-amnesia (where the
original source of the influence is forgotten) but the influence changes people’s
minds. Minority influence is more likely when the message is 4) socially relevant
– the majority of people are willing to change.
……………………………………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………

Minority research showing factors

CONSISTENCY – Moscovici showed that minorities have little influence when
they are not consistent. When 2 confederates in a group of 6 participants where
inconsistent in naming the colour of 36 blue ‘slides’ (said 24 were blue, 12 green) they
did not influence the majority (....%), however when consistent (36 green) it was ....%.
Supports consistency helps a majority pay attention, be taken seriously but
inconsistency may be taken as a sign of being unsure or un-thoughtful.

FLEXIBLE – Moscovici, showed that consistency requires flexibility. In a rerun of the coloured slide example
he found that if the minority were given the chance to be ‘flexible’ in their answers BUT were not, they had little
influence [e.g. if a new ‘flexible’ answer was added as a choice “green/blue”, if confederates they said every slide
as “green” they had little influence]. Flexibility is important because:

RESEARCH ON MONORITY INFLUENCE -

MOSCOVICI. Did: A lab exp each time - 2 real P’s in a group with 4 confederates
(actors), asked to say out loud (either ‘blue’ or ‘green’) the colour of 36 slides (all of
which were different shades of blue).
- In one condition (Consistent), confederates named every slide as ‘green’. Whilst other,
(Inconsistent) they named most as blue (24) but some as green (12).
FOUND: * P’s agreed with minority on …….% of trials in consistent condition
and just over……% in inconsistent condition. (* Most impressively, …….% of P’s
gave the same answer as the minority at least once.
SUGGESTS:………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
As minorities don’t have the power to pressure people to comply (like majorities do), they need to be listened to, to get their points across.
Consistency shows you are committed to your point, which helps you be taken seriously. Inconsistency may be seen as a sign of being unsure,
not believing what you are saying, or not thinking about it enough.
NEMETH. Showed that consistency alone is not always enough. In a re-run of the coloured slide study he found
that if the minority were given the chance to be ‘flexible’ in their answers BUT were not, they had little influence
[e.g. if a new ‘flexible’ answer was added as a choice “green/blue”, if confederates they said every slide as “green”
they had little influence]. Flexibility is important because:
 Discuss research on Minority influence (6 & 10)
Minority Influence occurs when one person (or a small group) influence the beliefs and behaviour of
other people. Since minorities do NOT have the social pressure that comes with conformity (large group
compliance e.g. Asch) they need to work on persuading people, changing their views. Psychologists have
proposed that to be more effective minorities mush show consistency over time (encourages others to re-
examine their beliefs), committed (so to draw attention to their cause) and flexible (since only being
consistent can be seen negatively if saying the same message over and over, instead adapting the message
gets seen as more reasonable / balanced). These factors may lead to individuals listening, taking notice
and changing their views – over time as increasing numbers join a ‘snowball effect’ starts as the minority
becomes the majority.

There is strong experimental support for the importance of

consistency and flexibility. Moscovici’s Blue/ Green (1969)
experiment showed how a confederate (fake) minority (2 out
of 6 people) were able to influence the others to join the
minority by consistency calling every slide GREEN, 8.4% of
blue slides were called ‘green’ (32% of P’s agreed at least
once). However, in another condition agreement to the
minority confederates fell to only 1.25% when they were
inconsistent. However, Nemeth to show that consistency without
flexibility can be seen negatively. He added a ‘new middle’ choice -
‘green-blue’ to the options, now finding when the confederates said
‘green’ to every slide (consistency alone) they had little influence, but
if they were sometimes flexible they got far more agreement from the
others.

There is research to support internalisation of minority ideas. In a

variation of Moscovci’s blue/green experiment participants were allowed to
write their answers down in private (rather than out loud). Moscovici found
private agreement with the minority was even higher, so this suggests that
members of the majority were being convinced and changing their own views
BUT were reluctant to admit this publicly. This could be because they did not
want to be linked with the minority position for fear of being seen as
‘awkward’ or ‘radical’, or even a ‘bit weird’. This suggests, for minorities to
make a difference in society it’s NOT just convincing people – but having
these people change in public too to be role models.

A limitation of much of the research is that many are lab studies with very artificial tasks e.g. coloured
slides. Therefore the behaviour is far removed from minorities in real life, in cases like jury decision
making, political campaigning, black rights which are much more serious – sometimes even dangerous.
So there is a case these research studies lack ecological validity and may be limited in what they can
show about life. However, some studies such as Clark et al (1994) Twelve Angry Men experiments have
show the importance of minority consistency in much more realistic situations. 270 university students
took part in mock murder trial role playing the jury members. Clarke manipulated the arguments they
were given and found the jury members were much more influenced (to change their mind) by
‘consistent’ arguments when making their decision about murder case.
Ethical Issues (VITAL TO KNOW WELL)
“An issue is a conflict; an ethical conflict - as you can see below is one between
what might be best for the participant vs. what is best for the researcher”.
ISSUE Participants View
Informed From the participant’s point of view, they have the
Consent right to be given comprehensive information (true aims)
concerning the nature (what will be involved – the tasks)
and purpose of the research and their role in it (what
they need to do), in order that they can make an
informed decision about whether to participate (or not).
Deception From the participant’s point of view, they are not told
the true aims of the study (e.g. what participation will
involve) and thus cannot give truly informed consent.
[Deception is unethical – you should not deceive anyone
without good cause. More importantly. Deception may
have stopped participants giving informed consent.
Deception could be considered demeaning to P’s, result
in stress or other embarrassment. ]
Right to From the participant’s point of view, if they feel
withdraw uncomfortable or distressed they should have the right
to be able to withdraw (during or even afterwards –
refusing to allow the researcher to use any data they
produced).
This is especially important if participants have been
deceived about the aims and/or procedures. However,
even if a participant has been fully informed, the actual
experience of taking part may turn out to be rather
different, so they should be able to withdraw.
[Sometimes the right to withdraw is compromised by
payment of participants. In such cases participants may
not feel able to withdraw]
Protection Protection from physical and psychological harm. – from
Form harm the participants point of view, during a research study
they should not experience negative physical or
psychological effects, such as physical injury, lowered
self esteem, embarrassment or distress. [Studies are
generally considered acceptable if they have no more
risk of harm than ordinary life.
Confidentiality From participant’s point of view, they should have the
right to have their personal information protected. [The
data protection act makes confidentiality a legal right. It
is only acceptable for personal data to be recorded if the
data are not made available in a form which indentifies
the participants.]
Privacy From participant’s point of view, they should have the
right to control the flow of information about themselves
(Participants would not expect to be observed by others
in certain situations e.g. when in the privacy of their own
home, but they might expect to be watch sitting on a
park bench or in the town centre).
Researchers View
From the Researchers point of view,
if participants are told the true aims,
this might cause them to guess the
aims of the experiment. This might
change the way they behave.
From the Researchers point of view,
it may be necessary to deceive
participants about the aims otherwise
the study could be meaningless,
however a distinction should be made
between without should details of the
research aims (reasonably
acceptable) and deliberately providing
false information (less acceptable).
From the Researchers point of view,
if participants do leave during the
study this can bias the results – only
leaving those who stayed are likely to
be more obedient.
From the Researchers point of view,
studying some more important
questions in Psychology may involve a
degree of distress to P’s. It is also
difficult to predict the outcome of
certain procedures – therefore it is
difficult to guarantee protection from
harm.
From the Researchers point of view,
it may be difficult to protect
confidentiality because the researches
wishes to publish findings. A
researcher may guarantee anonymity
(withholding the participants names)
but even then it may be obvious who
has been involved (e.g. if all the
people are from one place).
From the Researchers point of view,
it may be difficult to avoid invasion of
privacy when studying participants
without their awareness.
 Dealing with Ethical Issues (e.g. BPS Ethical Guidelines)
Ethical Committees
All institutions where research takes place have ethical committees, and they must approve any study
before it begins. It looks at any ethical issues raised by a research proposal and how the issues are
being dealt with (are they following the BPS ethical guidelines) – they weighs up the cost vs benefits of
the research before deciding if they study can go ahead.

Ethical Guidelines – a way of dealing/ resolving ethical issues

The BPS (British Psychological Society) regularly updates its ethical guidelines. The current version is
the ‘Code of Ethics and Conduct’ (BPS,2006). The aim of such guidelines are to tell psychologists what
behaviours are NOT acceptable, and give guidance on how to deal with ethical issues (dilemmas).
[Following the guidelines removes responsibility from the researcher – see below examples of BPS].
ISSUE How to deal with it Comments
Informed BPS on Informed Consent: “Where possible, an Presumptive consent involves
Consent investigator should inform all participants of the objectives of asking a similar group of people if
they feel the planned study is
the study, and all aspects of the research or intention that acceptable and explain all details. If
might reasonably be expected to influence their willingness to they say yes – we can assume our
participate”. new participants would also think the
same if they had been given the
Participants are asked to formally indicate their agreement to opportunity of informed consent.
participate and this should be based on compressive information
regarding the nature and purpose of the research and their role in it,
usually by a written consent form given at the beginning.

An alternative is to use ‘presumptive consent’ (see right)

Deception BPS on deception: “Psychologists should supply information Debriefing = a way of dealing with
as fully as possible. The central idea is the reaction of the deception by informing P’s the true
nature of the study after it has taken
participants when deception is revealed; if this leads to place. P’s should be given the
discomfort, anger or objections from the participants then the chance to discuss any concerns and
deception is unacceptable”. given the chance to withdraw. [This
time might also be used to gather
The best solution is to find other ways of running the study without more information about why they did
the need for deception, but the need for deception should be what they did.]
approved by an ethics committee, weighing up the benefits (of the
study) against the costs (to the participants).
Participants should be fully debriefed after the study and given the
chance to withhold their data from being used.
Right to Participants should be informed at the beginning of a study that they In many studies P’s are paid or
withdraw have the right to withdraw at any time (without any cost). This is rewarded (e.g. university studies
often indicated on the consent form. given course credit), so they may feel
unable to withdraw.
Protection Avoid any risks greater than everyday life. Stop the study if any Researchers are not always able to
Form harm signs arise. predict accurately the risks of taking
BPS on Protection from harm: “Investigators have part, sometimes participants get
a responsibility to protect their participants from physical more upset than you would think.
and mental harm during the study. Normally the risk of harm
must be no greater than in ordinary life”.
Confidentiality Researchers should not record the names of any participants, they It is still sometimes possible to work
should use numbers or false names. out participants by other information
they have provided, especially if use
a location of a school etc..
Privacy DO NOT observe anyone without their informed consent unless it is There is no universal agreement
in a public place. about what counts as a public place.
Participants may be asked to give retrospective consent (consent Plus, not everyone may feel this is
afterwards) or withhold their data. acceptable, for examples lovers on a
public bench.
Use of BPS on Children: “Research with children (under the age of
children 16), or with participants who have impairments that limit their
understanding and/or communication, to the extent that they are
unable to give their consent requires specific safe guarding
procedures (e.g. consent from an adult).”