Social Influence Flashcards
Definitions of social influence; Hewstone et al. (2015)
majority influence (conformity): social influence resulting from exposure to the opinions of a majority
minority influence (innovation): situation where an individual or minority can influence the majority
Sherif
Studies on social norms: beliefs about proper behaviour, not guided by laws but by the experience of group members
Looked at the influence of others on our behaviour when faced with ambiguous stimuli (informational social influence)
Used the autokinetic effect, which is an ambiguous stimulus; asked group of male participants to determine how much the point of light moved (it didn’t)
2 conditions, each with 4 sessions
* start alone; then 3 subsequent sessions with others; estimates converged
* start with group; subsequent 3 sessions alone; estimates converge (internalisation)
Participants’ answers converge towards a group norm
Inspired Asch’s studies
Asch paradigm
Series of experiments
Looked at the influence of others on our behaviour when faced with unambiguous stimuli (when alone, participants were accurate)
Procedure
* 18 trials
* differing number of confederates
* naive participant penultimate to answer
* confederates made errors on 12/18 trials (always a unanimous majority)
Findings
* 37% responses incorrect
* 75% made at least one error (but 0% when doing it alone)
* 5% yielded/conformed all the time
However, more positive interpretation (resistance to conformity)
* 63% responses correct
* 25% never yielded
* 95% gave correct response at least once
* 65% correct answer most of the time
Factors affecting conformity
(when do we conform?)
Group size
* conformity increases when size of majority increases
* inconsistent findings; leveling off vs linear increase
Unanimity
* lower conformity rate when 2 true participants
* lower conformity rate when dissenter (even if still inaccurate)
* because easier to dissent when have support, following someone else’s dissent
Culture
* Bond and Smith (1996) review of 133 Asch replications
* effect replicated across various cultures but degree of conformity varies
* greater conformity in collectivistic cultures
* but very few studies in the review came from non-Western cultures
Independent participants
(how do we conform?)
Independent participants:
* confident - rarely
* feel tension and doubt (discomfort; feel incorrect but also obliged to answer truthfully)
* dissent is difficult
Yielding participants:
* distortion of perception (yield without knowing) - relatively rare
* distortion of judgement (doubted self, own judgement may be incorrect)
* distortion of action (knew they were right but did not want to dissent)
* usually show more than one type of distortion
Informational and Normative Social Influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
Informational social influence
* goal is to arrive at the correct judgement
* often results in internalisation
* more conformity when more ambiguity
* evidence: Sherif’s 1963 study on norm formation using ambiguous stimuli (autokinetic effect) + meta-analysis of Asch studies showing greater compliance when more ambiguous stimuli
Normative social influence
* goal is to avoid ridicule, being disliked or disrupting harmony
* results in compliance without acceptance
* evidence: Asch variation where participant writes answer down, comformity rates drop from 37% to 12.5% + Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
Referent informational influence (Turner, 1982)
Adopting the norms, beliefs and behaviours of the prototypical ingroup member; ingroup vs outgroup influence
To maximise similarity between ingroup and differences with outgroup
Abrams et al. (1990)
* 2 conditions, majority ingroup or outgroup
* 2 conditions. visibility public or private
* when majority ingroup, more public than private conformity - seek to appear more similar
* when majority outgroup, more private than public conformity - seek to appear more different
Theoretical background of minority influence (Moscovici)
Importance of behavioural style:
* consistency (overtime and between members)
* investment (readiness to sacrifice to uphold beliefs)
* autonomy (no ulterior motive)
* rigidity (not dogmatic but consistent)
Conversion theory
Conflict model; to provoke conversion
Minority influence is qualitatively different from majority influence
* majority inflluence primarily induces compliant through comparison processes (low attention to the issue at hand)
* minority influence invokes private change through cognitive conflict and restructuring through validation processes (high attention to the issue at hand)
Moscovici et al. (1969)
study
- 4 naive participants + 2 confederates
- colour perception task; blue slides varying in intensity
2 conditions:
* consistent condition - confederates all said slides were green
* inconsistent condition - confederates called 2/3 green, 1/3 blue
Found
* control condition: 0.2% green
* inconsistent condition: 1% green
* consistent condition: 8% green
Second study
standardised test of colour discrimination to test participants’ green-blue discrimination threshold
* tested alone
* both experimental groups showed lower threshold for green than control group
* shows minority influence has been internalised; minority produces public AND private/cognitive changes
Moscovici and Lage (1976)
study
Compared minority and majority influence
* consistent vs inconsistent minority
* unanimous vs non-unanimous majority
* single consistent confederate
Found:
* consistent minority - 10% green
* non unanimous majority - 12% green
* unanimous majority - 40% green
* but! only consistent minority shifted colour thresholds (internalisation)
Latent and Indirect Effects
Perez and Mugny (1987) - exposure to pro-abortion message framed as minority vs majority position
* no minority influence on abortion attitudes
* increased support for birth control (indirect change on related issue)
Alvaro and Crano (1997) - exposure to position advocating for gay people to serve, framed as majority vs minority position
* no minority influence on related attitudes
* majority influence increased opposition to gun control (indirect change on relate issue)
Moscovici and Personnaz (1980) - used blue-green slide paradigm
* exposure to consistent minority changed reported after-image effects - neural changes?
* but controversial and has not been replicated
Processes involved in Minority Influence
Source-context elaboration model
