Implications for Social Change

Traditionally research into social influence has been associated with social control, particularly the research of Zimbardo, but here we look at how social change can result from this research.

Already in this topic we have seen examples of social influence being a force for good: as with Gandhi in India and the Suffragettes in the UK.  It can also be a force of evil, most notably with the Nazis in Germany but also many atrocities since, such as Mai Lai and the former Yugoslavia. 

The board provide very little information on what they expect from this section of the topic and at time of writing, I have been unable to find any sample questions provided by AQA that might help throw light on what they expect us to teach.  Looking through the half dozen or so text books we have in school they all seem to differ in their interpretation of the specification so what follows is very much a hotchpotch from various sources:

Social change is usually a gradual process but can occur rapidly following a war or revolution, for example the French and Russian revolutions brought about dramatic and rapid social changes in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries respectively.

Promoting social change

1. “The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark against the excesses of authority” Milgram (1974).  Asch and Milgram have shown that social support in the form of allies can significantly increase independent behaviour. 
2. Collectivist cultures such as Asian and African are more likely to conform than Western, individualistic societies.  As the world becomes a wealthier place (present credit crunch excepted) it is likely that the number of individualistic societies will increase.  As a result we would expect to see a decline in world-wide conformity.  (Note: this is the opinion of Eysenck in AS level psychology).  This does not seem to be in accordance with Twenge’s findings that in the USA (a most individualistic society), external locus of control is on the increase.  External LOC is associated with greater conformity!
3. People are more likely to conform with a group when that group is perceived as being of higher status.  As a result conformity is more likely in hierarchical structures such as the military when orders are delivered from above. 
4. Education is vital in preventing blind obedience.  During Milgram’s debrief of participants many said that they’d learned something useful about themselves and as a result would be less likely to conform or obey in future.  Gamson reported the case of a participant that refused to obey in a Milgram-esque experiment since he’d read about the research of Milgram. 
5. Those with higher self esteem are far more likely to remain independent.  It is unclear whether this is due to self esteem per se or attributable to the relationship between self esteem and internal locus of control.

Practical applications:

If we want people to behave in a more socially responsible way and not blindly conform to unjust authority we need to:

• Provide people with social support
• Foster personal responsibility (in line with individualistic societies)
• Avoid hierarchical organisations
• Provide education and encourage free and open thinking
• Enhance social esteem

Explaining social change using the Suffragettes as an example

1. Getting started

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century few people considered women should have the right to vote.  Even women conformed to the traditional gender role has it had existed for centuries.  However, during the second decade of the twentieth century a minority of women began calling for suffrage (the right to vote).  At this stage we have a small group ignoring the pressure to conform.  This could be for a number of reasons that we’ve already seen:  It is clear that the women involved

• Were low in authoritarian personality
• Were non-compliant personalities
• Had internal locus of control.

2. Bringing about change

Asch and Milgram both found that having an ally significantly increases independent behaviour.  Once the group had become established and gained publicity they would have acted as a disobedient role model to other women.  Obviously at this point they would still be a minority and according to Moscovici, minorities are more likely to create internalisation since their message is examined more closely to see why it differs from the majority view.  Internalisation is a private as well as public conversion.  If you look back at the “calling a blue slide green” study you’ll also see that Moscovici believed the message of a minority needs to be consistent and the group need to be committed.  Clearly the suffragettes were consistent and as for committed… Emily Davison through herself under the horse of the King’s horse Anmer as it ran in the Derby and died a few days later.

Note: the word suffragette was coined by the Daily Mail (nicknamed the ha’penny liar) and was initially intended as a term of abuse!

3. Critical mass

There eventually comes a point when the message has so much support that others begin to conform through normative social influence.  The once minority now hold the majority position and others feel left out.  However, with NSI there can be compliance rather than true conversion.  Those conforming may only do so publicly, privately still maintaining their original beliefs.  Today those airing dissenting views would be seen as sexist.  Public opinion expects us to conform!

4. Enshrined in law

In 1918 Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act giving some women over the age of 30 the right to vote.  Further legislation has followed since.  We now have obedience! 

Tajfel’s Minimal Group Theory

We are all members of groups.  Some are obvious if we belong to a football or netball team or all study at the same school.  Other groupings could depend on social class, gender, religious convictions, ethnicity, hobbies etc.  Once we identify with a certain group, according to Tajfel we develop an ingroup mentality and see those outside of our group as different.  As a member of CAMRA (campaign for real ale) we chuckle when punters ask for a pint of Fosters at the bar.  MX-5 drivers often wave to each other as they pass, as VW Beetle drivers used to do in the 1970s. 

Such ingroup/outgroup mentality can develop for the most trivial of reasons.  Below is an experimental example:

In 1967 Henri Tajfel (of Polish origin) carried out a classic series of experiments on teenage boys in Bristol.  The boys were split into two groups on the basis of whether they preferred the paintings of Klee or Kandinsky (chosen because it’s such an arbitrary way of splitting people).  Very quickly the boys developed an ingroup and outgroup mentality with those preferring Klee pulling together and turning against those that preferred Kandisnky.  To illustrate this Tajfel gave the participants grids of points. 

For example:

The top row were points that could be allocated to them (the ingroup) whereas the bottom row were points that would be awarded to the outgroup.  They were told that points could later be exchanged for cash! 

Each time such a grid was presented they had to select a pair of values.  Common sense might suggest that they’d chose the one on the far right 

since this would provide their group with he highest reward (19 points).  In fact they tended to choose the one on the far left

since this gave them the greater number of points in RELATION to the outgroup.

So just to clarify; they deliberately gave themselves lower rewards to ensure the outgroup suffered! 

Although the groups were chosen on very random grounds they very quickly adopted a distinct ingroup-outgrroup mentality. 

Just to emphasise (if not labour the point): the participants were prepared to give their own group far less reward than was possible if it meant that the out-group would come off even worse!  This despite the ‘minimal’ group situation.  The only thing the out-group had done ‘wrong’ was to prefer a different style of painting!

For Tajfel we maintain our social identity by member ship of groups, which is fine provided our ingroups are well viewed and are seen as high status.

But what happens if our social groups are not well liked or respected, for example if our groups are chavs, asylum seekers, Manchester City fan etc?

In this situation, according to Tajfel we have two choices:

1. Social mobility: we try to move to groups with a higher social status.  The asylum seeker obtains qualifications and becomes a doctor or lawyer.  This appears to be the preferred rout in the UK.
2. Improve status of existing group: sometimes the only way forward if mobility is not possible.  This can be achieved in one of two ways:

a.       social creativity: puts the groups attributes to better use, making them appear more positive.  Chavs could try and popularise shell suits and chunky jewellery.  A better example would be the ‘Black is Beautiful’ campaign of the 1960s in which newly arrived immigrants from the Carribean popularised their music and culture in the UK.

b.       Social competition: the group with the lower social status challenges more powerful groups head on and seeks to right the perceived injustice.  For example radical feminism that fought for equal rights for female workers and obviously the Suffragette movement of the early 1920s. 

Finished!