Web.waseleyhills.worcs.sch.uk



|LT 10: Social Change |

|The Special Role of Minority Influence |

|There are several steps involved to explain how minority influence creates social change – these are described below using the real-life example of the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and |

|60s in America: |

|Drawing Attention through social proof – in the 1950s in America, black separation applied to all parts of America. There were black neighbourhoods and, in the southern states, places such as schools and |

|restaurants were exclusive to whites. The civil right marches of this period drew attention to the situation by providing social proof of the problem. |

|Consistency – there were many marches and many people taking part. Even though they were a minority of the American population, the civil rights activists displayed consistency of the message and intent. |

|Deeper Processing of the issue – this attention meant that many people who had simply accepted the status quo began to think about the unjustness of it. |

|The Augmentation Principle – there were a number of incidents where individuals risked their lives e.g. the ‘freedom riders’ were mixed racial groups who got on buses in the south to challenge the fact black |

|people had to sit separately on buses. Many freedom riders were beaten and there were incidents of mob violence. |

|The Snowball Effect – civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King continued to press for changes that gradually got the attention of the US government. In 1964 the US Civil Rights Act was passed, which |

|prohibited discrimination. This represented a change from minority to majority support for civil rights. |

|Social Cryptoamnesia (people have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened) – there is no doubt that social change did come about and the south is quite a different place now but |

|some people have no memory of the events above that led to the change. |

|Lessons from Conformity Research and NSI |Lessons from Obedience Research |

|Asch highlighted the importance of dissent in one of his variations, when one confederate gave correct |Milgram highlighted the importance of disobedient role models. When the confederate refused to give |

|answers. This broke the power of the majority which encouraged others to dissent. |shocks to the learner, the rate of obedience in the genuine participant plummeted. |

|Environmental and health campaigns increasingly exploit the conformity processes by appealing to |Zimbardo (2007) suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of |

|normative social influence. They do this by providing information about what other people are doing e.g.|gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a |

|reducing litter by printing normative messages on litter bins (‘Bin it – Others do’), and preventing |bigger one. People essentially ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour. |

|young people form smoking (telling them that most young people do not smoke). Social change is | |

|encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing. | |

| | |

| | |

|Evaluation of Social Change |

|Supportive Research for Normative Influences |Contradictory Research |Reductionist |

|P: One strength of normative influences leading to social change is |P: One weakness of the theory of minority influence and its effects |P: One weakness of the theory of minority influence in social change |

|that there is supportive evidence. |on social change is that it is argued it may be indirect and very |is that it can be considered to be reductionist. |

|E: For example, Nolan et al. (2008) hung messages regarding reducing |limited. |E: For example, it considers that if a minority is not successful in |

|energy consumption on the doors of house in California for one month,|E: For example, Nemeth (1986) argues that the effects of minority |implementing social change, it is because they weren’t consistent |

|with the main message explaining that most people were already doing |influence are indirect and delayed. This is because the majority may|enough, or didn’t draw enough attention to the issue for example. |

|this. They found significant decreases in energy usage as a result. |only respond to matters related to the issue at hand, not on the |E: This is a weakness because the minority may have been consistent,|

|E: This is a strength because it shows that when people think others |central issue itself, and the effects may not be seen for some time. |but there may be other social barriers that explain why people didn’t|

|are doing something, they are more likely to change their behaviour |E: This is a weakness because although a minority may be influential,|convert their attitudes. For example, Bashir et al. (2013) found |

|as well so as not to feel left out or isolated (normative |it shows that the effects are fragile and its role in society is very|that PPs were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways |

|influences). It shows that conformity can lead to social change. |limited e.g. it has taken decades for the attitudes towards |because they didn’t want to be associated with stereotypical |

|L: As a result, the explanatory power of normative influences in |drink-driving and smoking to shift. |‘environmentalists’. Even though they agreed change was necessary, |

|conformity leading to increased social change is increased. |L: As a result, the credibility of the theory of minority influence |they disassociated with the issue for fear of potentially negative |

| |and its role in social change is reduced. |stereotypes. |

| | |L: As a result, the credibility of the theory of social change is |

| | |reduced. |

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

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download