Social Influence {Resistance & Minority Influence}

the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority, and this ability is influenced by situational and dispositional factors

the presence of people who resist pressures to conform of obey can help others do the same. these people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. internals believe they are mostly responsible and externals blame luck or other outside forces

a form of social influence in which a minority of people , or even just one person, persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours, leading to internalisation in which private attitudes and public behaviours are changed.

minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs both over time and between all individuals that form the minority. effective because it draws attention to minority view.

Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position eg by making personal sacrifices. effective as it shows minority is not acting out of self interest

Relentless consistency could be counterproductive if majority interpret it as unreasonable or unbending so showing flexibility and accepting the possibility of compromise is most effective

The process by which individuals and groups change eachothers attitudes and behaviours including conformity, obedience and minority influence

when whole societies, not just individuals, adopt new beliefs, attitudes and ways of doing things.

aschs study shows that the naive participant conforms as soon as the dissenter does

pressure to conform reduced if others do not conform, we don't give the same answer as them , but we have the freedom to give our own even if it's non conformist

In milgrams variations, obedience rates dropped from 65 to 10%, when genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate, participant doesn't follow the behaviour of the disobedient confederate but uses it as a model to do what they want

In milgrams variations, obedience rates dropped from 65 to 10%, when genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate, participant doesn't follow the behaviour of the disobedient confederate but uses it as a model to do what they want

you're not one or the other, it's a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and low external LOC at the other ,

Internal LOC more resistance as they take on responsibility of actions and thus base decisions on own beliefs and thus resist pressures from others,

also these people are more self-confident, more achievement oriented, have higher intelligence, and a lower need for social approval, so have a greater resistance to social influence

ResearchSupport; Allen and Levine found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in Asch-type studies, even if they had thick glasses and claimed to have poor vision > so it isn't to do with them being right, but just them acting as a model of free pressure

Research Support

gamson et al found higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram because the participants in Gamsons study were in groups , and 29/33 groups rebelled

Research Support

Holland repeated milgrams study and measured whether ppts were internal or external and found 37% of internals did notn continue to highest shock level but only 23% of externals didn't

Contradictory Research

Twenge et Al analysed data from American locus of control studies over a 40 year period which shows people have become more resistant to obedience but more external. (Could be because in our changing society we have less control, though)

Limited role of LOC

Rotter pointed out that it doesn't influence our behaviour in familar situations because past experiences are always more important (if we've confirmed before we'll do it again)

All members of minority say same thing

All members say same thing for a long time

When commitment is so great and self sacrifices are involved so much so that the majority begin to pay attention

An increasing number of people switching from the majority to minority. The more this happens the faster the conversion rate

Research support for internalisation

Research support for depth of thought

Research support for consistency

moscovoi et al found that consistent minority had greater effect that inconsistent one

Wood et Al found in a meta analysis of 100 similar studies that minorities were most influential if consistent

Martin et Al did a study where one group of PPS heard a minority group agree with a viewpoint and one group heard a majority agree. PPS were less likely to change their mind after if they heard the minority group, which supports the central arguement of how they work

In a variations of moscovici slide study, PPS were allowed to write down answer and private agreement with minority was even greater , which shows they internally agreed buy didn't want to voice it as they didn't wanna be associated with a minority position for fear of being radical awkward or weird

Limited real world application

Artificial tasks

A limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are artificial, just as asch's line task is, so research is unlike real life , where jury decisions and political campaigns are of essence so poor external validity

Research always has a clear distinction between minority and majority but in real life it's different to just numbers, power and status is involved too, and opposition is often hostile

1. Drawing attention through social proof

2. Consistency

3. Deeper processing

4. The augmentation principle

5. Snowball effect

6. Social cryptomnesia (people have a memory that a change has occured but don't remember how it happened)

Environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity processes appealing to normative social influence

The process of gradual commitment is emphasized by zimbardo in creating social change , obeying small instructions makes it harder to resist a bigger white one

Research Support For NSI

adverts saying to reduce energy consumption cause others were was more successful than one that just said to do it (nolan et Al)

-only indirectly offensive

-role of deeper processing

-barrier to social change

-methodological issues

Asch and Moscovici and Milgrams critics apply here

Bashir et Al found that people described environmentalist and feminist in negative ways despite agreeing with the cause as they didn't wanna be seen as part of the stereotype which means there may be more steps to social change than anticipated

Moscovici says minority change is a cognotive process so Diane Mackie disagrees and presents evidence that majority influence does, because you're more forced to think about why so many people think something , which casts doubt on the validity of moscovicis theory

Nemeth argues that minority influence is really indirect and delayed: indirect because the majority is influenced on matters related to the issue and not the issue on hand, and delayed as effects aren't seen for some time

Weakness because effects of minority influence are limited