Studied by 27 people
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:
Rendering of favors / gift giving
Generating perceived similarity
Self enhancement (bragging)
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:
Remote - 65% were obedient
Voice feedback - 62%
Proximity - 40%
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
Note
Flashcard