SOC 241 - Exam 2

Group

A gathering of two or more people that meet the following qualifications:
They interact and communicate, usually face to face
They share at least one common goal
They belong to a common unity that exists across time

Primary Group

A unit characterized by:
Frequent face to face interactions
Strong identification with group
Strong affect towards group
Long-term duration

Secondary Group

A unit characterized by:
Few face to face interactions
Weak identification with group
Functional Relationships
Short-term duration

Impact of Jury Size

Influences representativeness
Determines perceived conformity pressures

Group Processes Impacting Jury Decisions

Group Polarization
Minority Influence
Presence of conformity pressures

Group Polarization

The tendency for individual responses to become more extreme during group discussion

Minority Influence

The impact of a minority subset on the remaining majority of the group.

Probability of Minority Influence being Successfully exerted increases when:

The minority is consistent, persistent, confident, and favoring acquittal

Yale Communications Model

Based on the assumption that we can change attitudes by exposing people to information that is inconsistent with current beliefs. If information is convincing, it leads to attitude change

Before a message can persuade, it has to

Raise a question about a prior held attitude's validity
Offer an alternative position and give the audience a reason to accept it

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Endeavors to reconcile much of the conflicting data of past persuasion studies conducted within the Yale Communications Model. It does this by suggesting that attitude change can occur via two cognitive processes (Central and Peripheral)

Central cognitive process

Based on personal relevance of issue/message involvement and high level of processing capacity

Peripheral Cognitive Process

Based on lack of motivation and capacity to process
Peripheral cues such as authority, consistency, scarcity, reciprocation, liking, and social proof

Informational Conformity

Yielding to the responses of others based on a desire to produce an accurate outcome
For example, we believe a Lawyer when they tell us about a law because we believe they have authority in the subject

Normative Conformity

Yielding to the responses of others based on a desire to be accepted

Conditions that strengthen informational conformity

We are made to feel incompetent
We are involved in an ambiguous situation
There is the presence of experts in the group

Conditions that strengthen Normative conformity

We are made to feel insecure
The group has at least 3 people
The group is unanimous
We rate the status and the attractiveness of the group as high

Asch Line Comparison Study

Found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group.
Example of Normative Conformity

Reasons why people conform

Informational Conformity and Normative Conformity

Sherif's autokinetic effect study

When observing an ambiguous stimuli (lights), people in a group tend to converge on their estimates. Example of Informational Conformity

Compliance

a type of social influence where an individual does what someone else wants them to do, following his or her request or suggestion.

Foot-in-the-door Technique

Person asks target for small favor
Target agrees
Person then asks target for a larger favor

Qualifying conditions:
Perception of free choice is necessary
Initial request must be large enough to elicit self-perception process

Door-in-the-face technique

Person asks target for a large favor
Target declines
Person then asks target for a smaller favor, which was the original goal

Qualifying conditions:
Same individual must ask for both favors (establishes process of reciprocal concessions)
Works best with short time interval between requests

Low ball technique

Person gets target to become committed to a decision
Person then changes original conditions of decision (usually becomes more costly)
For example, shady car dealer or Darth Vader in Empire Strikes Back

Ingratiation Technique

4 Separate Strategies:
1. Rendering of favors / gift giving
2. Generating perceived similarity
3. Self enhancement (bragging)
4. Other enhancement (compliments)

Person elicits positive sentiment from target using one of the strategies
Person then asks target for favor

Counterstrategy for Foot-in-the-Door

Pay attention to your own feelings
Ask yourself if, in the absence of your former compliance, would you say yes to this 2nd request singularly. If not, do not comply

Counterstrategy for Door in Face

Regulate reciprocity: recognize the abuse of the norm of reciprocity when such norms are used to manipulate or trick us
If you receive some “unexpected benefit” from another person, remind yourself that one need not match concessions

Counterstrategy for Low Ball

Learn to separate the reasons behind initial commitments or decisions from ones we later generate ourselves

Counterstrategy for Ingratiation

Be sensitive to individuals who try to establish immediate rapport with us by: 1) compliments and 2) small gifts
Separate our feelings for the person from the decision or action the are trying to elicit from us

Obedience

Studied intensively by Milgram, especially regarding destructive obedience

Dispositional Factors that influence Destructive Obedience (Milgram)

Gender, pathological underpinnings, lack of knowledge of consequences -- all have similar results
No demographic variable identified that factors into this

Situational Factors for Destructive Obedience

Emotional and physical distance of victim:
1. Remote - 65% were obedient
2. Voice feedback - 62%
3. Proximity - 40%
4. Touch-proximity - 30%

Physical Distance of Authority: 20.5%
Hierarchical scripted role behavior: Doctor/nurse, captain/first officer - much higher rates of obedience

Other factors that impact Destructive Obedience

Legitimacy of authority - is authority rightful and appropriate?
Legitimacy of power base - was power of the group obtained appropriately?
Legitimacy of demand - is the demand made by authority valid and justifiable?

Four Components of the Deliberation Ideal

Equality (equal participation) and independence of jurors
Openness to informational influence/conformity
Weak normative pressure (minimal normative conformity)
Verdicts based only on evidence generated in court