MAJORITY
INFLUENCE - large
group influences
smaller sub-group or
individual
ASCH - 1952 - LINE TASK MAJORITY
INFLUENCE. Asch found people are more
likely to conform when there are more than
three confederates, beyond three makes
no difference, conformity is stable. there
was no significant consequences for
conforming or resisting.
ABRAMS ET AL - 2000 - THE
SAME INFORMATION HAS
DIFFERENT EFFECTS
DEPENDING ON ITS SOURCE
- in-group deviants are rejected
even more if they deviate from
the group norm
SOCIAL INFLUENCE -
CIALDINI & GRISKEVICUS -
2010 - "when one person's
attitudes, cognitions or
behaviours are changed through
the doings of another"
people conform,
comply and deviate
from NORMS (beliefs
and behaviours
generated by a group
and guide our
interactions)
humans crave to be
part of a social group,
such as social
networking sites.
COMPLY -
go along with.
CONFORM -
internalise it.
DEVIATE - go
against it
SHERIF - 1936 - AUTOKINETIC STUDY
- dark room, dot of light, asked how much
the light moved, dark room impossible to
judge distance, individual estimates
become consistent over multiple
channels. individual estimates changed
when in a group. when other people were
present, people changed their estimates
to fall in line with eachother. group norm
overtakes individual norm
people conform in
conditions of
uncertainty or
ambiguity, as people
turn to eachother to
decide about reality.
logical thing to look to
others and do it in
many situations
WHEN DO
PEOPLE
CONFORM?
1. IN GROUPS
OF THREE OR
MORE.
2. UNANIMITY,
if one person
doesn't conform,
others are less
likely to as well
3. TASK
DIFFICULTY -
when lines are
more similar,
conformity rises
4. FEAR OF RIDICULE -
conformity drops when
people can write their
responses in private
LEWIN - 1947 - ORANGE JUICE
EXPERIMENT. TWO GROUPS, 1.
group discussion and public
annoucement. 2. individual
discussion and private commitment.
after two weeks and four weeks the
group decision condition were much
more likely to conform compared to
the individual decision
FESTINGER - 1954 - SOCIAL COMPARISON
THEORY - people are motivated to hold beliefs that
are correct and which they can feel confident about.
they determine the correctness of their beliefs
through PHYSICAL or SOCIAL REALITY TESTING.
Physical reality testing is good when the ambiguity
is concrete and have time. social reality testing is
ood when the ambiuity is not concrete.
SOCIAL REALITY TESTING - what you think
about X, what do you think others feel about
X. BELIEFS become stronger when the people
we check with agree with our original view. we
have a TENDENCY TO BELIEVE THAT
OTHERS HOLD THE SAME BELIEFS AS US -
FALSE CONSENSUS EFFECT, which makes
our beliefs particularly strong. social reality is
sometimes so powerful it can replace
objective reality
DEUTSCH AND GERARD - 1955 - THE NEED TO
BELONG HYPOTHESIS - people onform publically to it in
but do not change their private beliefs. and the NEED TO
BE RIGHT HYPOTHESIS - strong motivation towards
accuracy, tend to adopt the social information publically
and privately. METHOD - participants entered an
Asch-like conformity task. made judgements alone, in
presence of others but alone, publically or finally
privately but with a GROUP MOTIVATION to complete
less mistakes. FOUND THE GROUP MOTIVATION
CONDITION HAD THE MOST ERRORS. people therefore
change their beliefs depending on what others are doing
to feel like a part of the group, to understand something
THEORIES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE
1. RATIONAL. 2.
IRRATIONAL. 3.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE TWO - DUAL
PROCESS THEORIES
dual process theories have a common theme
- INFORMATIONAL influence - true inluence
and private attitude change. NORMATIVE
influence - MERE COMPLIANCE. TURNER -
1987 - 1991 - questioned this distinction
because it over-emphasised the role of group
supervision and downplayed the role of roup
belongingness
BARON AND KERR - 2002 -
NON-CONORMERS - when there is
deviance, conformity is threatened
as they undermine certainty and
create ambiguity. make the group
look bad.
SCHACHTER'S DEVIANCE STUDY -
1951 - discuss Jonny Rocco study,
three confederates, deviant, slider (first
agrees than changes) and mode (always
agrees). FOUND THAT
COMMUNICATION WAS LEAST FOR
MODE, MOST FOR DEVIANT, LIKED
THE DEVIANT THE LEAST.
MILGRAM - 1963 , 1974 - APPLY ELECTRIC SHOCKS TO ANOTHER PERSON to
test conformity. Milgram influenced by World War 2, and the killings of 6 million
jews. Many of hitlers workers were calmm and mild and were only doing what they
did as they were "obeying orders". declare ourselves free from blame. told they
were participating in a study of the effects of punishment on learning. people are
socialised to respect the authority of the state. the partcipant (the confederate)
stopped responding to the cues at 300V, the real participant was then prompted by
the experiment if they did not treat the no response as a wrong answer like they
were meant to. such prompts included "the experiment requires that you continue".
EXPERTS predicted that ony 10% would obey to 180VOLTS when in reality nearly
everyone did till 255V and 65% did till the end.
evidence of foot-in-the-door persuasion, once people
commited themselves to a course of action, it can be
dificult for them to change their mind.
another factor involved in obedience is immediacy,
for example, when the victim was neither seen nor
heard, conformity rose to 100% completed till the
end.
proximity / immediacy of
the authority figure also
played a part on
conformity, as
obedience is reduced
when the experimenter
is absent.
another important
factor is the legitimacy
of the authority figure.
MINORITY
INFLUENCE -
individual or small
group influences
large group
REAL
WORLD
EXAMPLES
SUFFRAGETTE
MOVEMENT -
1920s
GREENPEACE
- 1980s - today
MINORITIES influence the
majority through
behavioural style
(consistency), flexibility and
compromise, style of
thinking and identification
1. CONSISTENCY. -
MOSCOVICI - 1969 - the
most important aspect of
behavioural style is
consistency. all members
should repeadedly and
consistenly state the
same message
MOSCOVICI, LAGE &
NAFFRECHOUX - 1969 - 3
conditions. there is a blue
screen, 4 real pps, 2
confederates, one group say
the slide is always green, the
second group says sometimes
green and control is all real
participants. group one all
conform
CRITIQUE BY
SAMPSON - 1991 -
poor ecological
validity and female
students as
participants
unrepresentative
NEMETH ET AL - 1974 -
variation on the procedure.
condition one, randomly
confederates said slide
was "Green" or
"Blue-Green", condition
two were systematically
said "Green" to brighter
slides and "Blue-Green" to
darker ones. last condition
just said "Green" on all
trials. most influenced
(21%) by the systematic
and consistent condition to
colours (cond 2)
2. FLEXIBILITY AND
COMPROMISE - MUGNY &
PAPSTAMOU - 1980 -
consistency alone is not
sufficient for a minority to
influence the majority. the
consistent minority should be
seen as flexible and
compromising instead of rigid
and uncompromising, then
they have a better chance of
changing the majority
NEMETH - 1987 - MOCK
JURY EXPERIMENT -
compensation for victim of
ski lift accident.
confederate 1 didn't
compromise, confederate 2
compromised with majority
and the majority did the
same
3. STYLE OF
THINKING - PETTY
ET AL - 1994 - need to
think deeply about the
other views being put
forward, so engage in
systematic thinking
and processing
SMITH ET AL - 1996 -
minority should get the
majority to think about
an issue, then they
stand a good chance of
influencing the majority
4. IDENTIFICATION -
people identify with those
similar to themselves, if
identify the majority are
more likely to take the
minority views seriously
MASS ET AL -
1982 - gay minority
arguing for gay
rights had less
influence on a
straight minority
than a straight
minority arguing for
gay rights
UNANIMITY - if one
confederate gives the
correct answer, the
true participant was
less likely to conform
IS MAJORITY AND
MINORITY
INFLUENCE THE
SAME OR
DIFFERENT?
SAME
LATANE AND WOLF - 1981 -
SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY - the
SIT can explain maj and min
through three factors, 1.
STRENGTH OF MESSAGE
(numbers or consistency) 2.
STATUS AND KNOWLEDGE
(one person expert has similar
influence to majority of
non-experts. 3. IMMEDIACY
(closer psychologically or
physically to influencer, greater
the message).
MOSCOVICI & NEMETH - 1974
- argue that a minority of one is
more influential than a minority
of more than one, one person is
more likely to be consistent over
long periods of time
DIFFERENT
MOSCOVICI - 1980 - majority
influence results in
COMPLIANCE (not believing in
private), whereas minority
inlfluence results in
CONVERSION (believing in
private but not acknowledging
in public). MINORITY MAKES
PEOPLE OPEN MINDED,
MAJORITY MAKES PEOPLE
THINK NARROW MINDEDLY
MOSCOVICI - 1980 -
majority based on public
compliance, normative
influence - do what is the
group norm. minority
influence not based on
normative, but based on
informational social
influence, providing the
majority with new ideas
so that they re-examine
their views
MOSCOVICI - 1980 -
DUAL PROCESS
THEORY - MAJORITY =
compliance, social
comparison process,
normative, public
conformity. MINORITY =
conversion, force others
to think more deeply,
private conformity
EVIDENCE - MOSCOVICI &
PERSONNAZ - 1980, 1986 -
accept majority views
passively, minority views
involve cognitive
reconstruction.
BLUE-GREEN EXPERIMENT,
pps publically called out the
colour, then privately wrote
down the colour of the slide.
when confederate absent,
minority influence rose.
SOCIAL
INFLUENCE -
ALLPORT - 1954 -
thoughts, feelings
and behaviours
influenced by real,
imagined or implied
presence of others
difference between cooercive compliance
(agree don't believe) and persuasive
influence on the other (believe). compliance
does't reflect internal change so only
persists when being watched
KELLEY - 1952 - REFERENCE
GROUPS are groups that are
psychologically significant for people's
attitudes and behaviours, either behave
in accordance or opposition. whereas
MEMBERSHIP GROUPS are groups to
which we belong. positive reference
group = conformity.
BOCHNER AND INSKO -
1966 - information can be
inluential when it
originates from an expert
source. more likely to
accept info from an
expert source until the
idea became implausible
POWER AND
INFLUENCE
MOSCOVICI - 1976 -
POWER is the basis of
compliance, MOSCOVICI
contrasts power with
influence, saying they are
two seperate things. the
relationship between power
and influence is not clear-cut
POWER is the control
through domination which
produces compliance and
submission. if people have
power they do not need
inluence, and if they can
influence effectively, they
do not need power.