Social influence

majority influence and minority influence

Majority influence

\
* Social influence resulting from exposure to the opinions of a majority or the majority of one’s group (Hewstone, Stroebe & Jonas 2015)

Asch Experiments

a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions

Muzafer Sherif study on conformity 1935

put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and say how far it moved (autokinetic effect)

Minority influence

\
* Either an individual or a group in a numerical minority can influence the majority (Hewstone, Stroebe & Jonas, 2015)

Asch paradigm

“despite large effect, the preponderance of judgments was independent, evidence that under the present conditions, the force of the perceived data far exceeded that of the majority”

\
when naive participants write down their answers instead of saying them out loud, conformity rates drop from 37% to 12.5%

Unanimity

\
variation where confederate gives a deviate ,but wrong answer decreases conformity. 

Independent participants

\
* Confident that they are right 
* Feeling of discomfort and feeling incorrect but obligation to respond truthfully 
* Asch 1956 → only rarely did we find a subject completely free of doubt

Yielding participants

\
* Distortion of judgment → e.g.: “i only assumed my answers to be wrong, because i disagreed with everyone else”
* Distortion of action → e.g.: “I might be alienating a few people. The group had a definite idea, my idea disagreed, this might arouse anger”

Informational social influence

we accept information as evidence of reality. Goal to make accurate and valid judgements 

– evidence:

* Sherif’s 1936 autokinetic study on norm formation
* Meta-analysis on Ash-like experiments found that conformity was significantly higher the more ambiguous the stimulus 

**Normative social influence**

1. need for social approval, compliance (public) without acceptance (private) 

– evidence:

* Asch variation with answers written down when faced with incorrect majority: 12.5% conformity rate 
* Deutsch and Gerard 1955 experiment 

Referent informational influence

adopt the norms , beliefs and behaviours of the prototypical ingroup member. Maximises similarities between ingroup members and differences between ingroup and outgroup members 

Moscovici – the importance of behavioural style

\

1. Consistency –over time and between members 
2. Investment –significant personal or material sacrifice 
3. Autonomy – no ulterior motives 
4. Rigidity – not dogmatic yet consistent 

\
– developed a conflict model → provoke **conversion** 

Moscovici -- minority vs majority influence

\
*  **majority** primarily induces compliance (public conformity) through **comparison processes** (**low** attention to the issue)
* **Minority** private change through cognitive conflict and restructuring through **validation processes** (**high** attention to the issue)

Moscovici, Lage and Naffrechoux 1969

– colour perception task → blue slides that varied in intensity 

– consistent condition → confederates called all slides green 

– inconsistent condition → confederates called ⅔ of the slides green and ⅓ blue 

* 0.2% green responses in the control condition 
* 1.1% green responses in the inconsistent condition
* 8.2% green responses in a consistent condition

Moscovici & Lage 1976

* Consistent minority (2 confederates, 4 naive)
* Inconsistent minority (2 confederates, 4 naive)
* A single consistent confederate 

→ unanimous majority (3 confederates, 1 naive)

→ non-unanimous majority (4 confederates, 2 naive) 

* Two consistent confederates (10% green)
* Two inconsistent confederates (

Conversion theory 1980

* Attention to arguments > private acceptance 
* Latent (time) and indirect effects 

Perez & Mugny 1987

exposure to pro-abortion message portrayed as either a majority or minority position 

* No minority influence on attitudes toward abortion 
* Increase in support for birth control → indirect change on a related issue

Alvaro and Crano 1997

exposure to a position advocating that gay people serve in the military in the US portrayed as either a majority or minority opinion

* Minority influence produced no change on related attitudes
* Minority influence increased opposition to gun control → indirect change on a related issue 

\
**Wood et al. 1994**

\
* Meta-analysis of over 100 studies 
* Minorities are generally less persuasive than majorities on direct measures , not on indirect ones
* Persuasive compared to control conditions 

Source-context-elaboration model

elaboration = thinking about the message

low elaboration > heuristic processing → favours majority

high elaboration > systematic processing → favours neither

intermediate elaboration > conversion theory → systematic processing of minority view

Nemeth

difference between majority and minotiry influence is the type rather than the amount of thinking

majority > narrow focus on the message

minority > broader focus, divergent thinking

Self-categorization theory (John Turner)

there is a continual competition between self-categorization at the personal and group level and that self-perception varies along a continuum defined by the conflict between the two and their shifting relative strengths