Week 7.1PP.pdf - Minority Influence and Intragroup Processes PDF

Week 7 Minority Influence Intragroup Processes 1 DR EMINA SUBASIC Social Influence II: MINORITY INFLUENCE  (I) A conformity bias in previous research? (II) The behavioural Overview style of minority groups (III) Conversion theory ...

Week 7 Minority Influence Intragroup Processes 1 DR EMINA SUBASIC Social Influence II: MINORITY INFLUENCE  (I) A conformity bias in previous research? (II) The behavioural Overview style of minority groups (III) Conversion theory  Moscovici and Faucheux (1972) criticised Sherif and Asch for only focusing on conformity (conformity bias). A Conformity They re-interpreted Asch's studies as demonstrations of minority, rather than Bias? majority, influence. (Moscovici & Participants in Asch's studies realize that Faucheux, 1972) most people in the world (i.e., the majority) would pick the correct comparison line. Hence, participants are really influenced by a minority of six people (the confederates) who disagree with the majority opinion. The Asch Paradigm: A Case of Minority Influence? Members of a minority group Member of a majority group Majorities and Minorities in Asch’s Experiment and the Real World The Real World Asch’s Experiment = Participant = Confederate  Three Social Influence Modalities (Moscovici, 1976) 1. Normalization: Both groups compromise on their position and meet one another half-way. 2. Conformity: The minority adopts the majority's position. 3. Innovation: The majority adopts the minority's position.  1. Consistency: The minority proposes a clear position on an issue and sticks to it. The Behavioural 2. Investment: The minority is seen to have made personal or material sacrifices for Style of their position. Minority Groups 3. Autonomy: The minority is seen to be acting out of principle, rather than (Moscovici, following ulterior motives. 1976) 4. Flexibility: The minority is seen to be flexible and realistic.  Consistent minorities draw attention to themselves as proponents of an alternative coherent perspective, and this makes majorities doubt their own The Role of perspective. Consistency Two forms of consistency are in Minority important: Influence 1. Diachronic consistency: Intra- individual consistency over time. 2. Synchronic consistency: Inter- individual consistency.  All participants took part in, and were seen to pass, a colour blindness test. Moscovici, Participants took part in Lage, and groups of six. Naffrechoux (1969): Participants were shown slides Phase I that were all clearly blue in colour, but some were brightly illuminated and some were dimly illuminated. Participants were asked to judge the colour of the slides by naming aloud a simple colour.  1. Control condition: No confederates were present. All six participants were 'real'. 2. Inconsistent condition: Two confederates answered "green" on Conditions 2/3rds of the trials and "blue" on 1/3rd of the trials. 3. Consistent condition: Two confederates answered "green" on all of the trials. Results: Percentage of Incorrect Responses in Each Condition 9 Percentage of Incorrect 8 7 6 Responses 5 4 3 2 1 0 Control Inconsistent Consistent Condition Moscovici et al. (1969): Phase II Participants took part in a “separate” experiment on colour vision. Participants were shown a series of disks that varied in colour from blue through blue-green to green. They were asked to categorize (privately) each disk as either "blue" or "green".  Phase II: Results Participants who had been in the consistent condition described more blue-green disks as "green" and fewer as "blue" than participants who had been in the control group.  Constraints on Minority Influence u (a) Informational Influence? No! Minorities contain fewer people than majorities and so are likely to be perceived as being less reliable sources of information than majorities. u u (b) Normative Influence? No! Minorities are often ridiculed and perceived as "weird" by majorities and so do not have a strong normative influence. Conversion Theory (Moscovici, 1980) Majority Influence Minority Influence Operates via informational and/or Operates via a normative influence validation process Does not require much cognitive Requires cognitive elaboration elaboration and restructuring Produces public compliance Produces long-lasting private and/or superficial private acceptance acceptance (a conversion effect) Minority Influence is More Effective than Majority Influence! u “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” (Samuel Adams, Politician of the American Revolution 1722-1803) Asch’s Postexperimental Feedback Majority of participants: "My perceptions might have been incorrect". Informational Influence > Conformity (private acceptance) Large minority of participants: "My perceptions were correct, but I did not want to stand out". Normative Influence > Compliance (public acceptance only) Small minority of participants: "I agreed with the group's perceptions". Conversion > Innovation  Participants took part in pairs (participant + confederate). They were shown a series of five obviously blue slides. Moscovici Participants rated: and (a) the colour of each slide Personnaz (b) the colour of the afterimage of each slide (1980) Ratings were made on a 9-point scale (1 = yellow, 5 = blue, 9 = purple).  1. Control condition: No additional information was given. 2. Majority source condition: Participants were told that 18.2% of previous participants had said "blue", like them, Conditions but 81.8% had said "green". 3. Minority source condition: Participants were told that 81.8% of previous participants had said "blue", like them, and 18.2% had said "green".  Phase 1: Participants privately rated the colour of the slide and its afterimage across several trials (baseline). Four Phases Phase 2: Participants publicly rated the colour of the slide in the presence of a confederate who always answered first and always said "green". This was the social influence phase.  Phase 3: Participants privately rated the colour of the slide and its afterimage in the presence of the confederate. Four Phases Phase 4: Participants privately rated the colour of the slide and its afterimage in the absence of the confederate.  u If the (majority/minority) confederate had brought about a profound private change in participants' perception, then this Main would be reflected in the colour of the afterimage that participants Hypothesis reported, even though there had never been a direct attempt by the confederate to influence participants with respect to the afterimage judgement.  Results: Moscovici & Personnaz (1980) Results 0.4 0.3 Afterimage judgments 0.2 0.1 Control 0 Majority -0.1 Minority -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 Conclusions 1. Minority influence led to a profound private shift in people's perceptual systems (a conversion effect). 2. The afterimage colours were different from the "green" colour called out by the confederates, so this wasn't a straightforward case of mimicking the confederate's responses.  Looked at minority influence among Cross- Japanese people during a discussion task. Cultural Differences Found that minority influence was in Minority most likely to occur when the gap Influence between the majority and minority positions was small rather than large. (Atsumi & Suigiman, Smith and Bond (1998) suggested that 1990) these results are due to the Japanese concern with intergroup harmony. Overall Conclusions If there was no minority influence there would be no social change. Majorities influence minorities (Sherif, Asch) and minorities influence majorities (Moscovici).  Is there one set of processes for majorities (normative and informational influence) and one set for minorities (conversion)? Remaining Some theorists propose single- Issue process models of social influence (e.g., Latané's, 1981, social impact theory; Turner et al., 1987 self- categorization theory). Intragroup SOCIAL FACILITATION Processes I: SOCIAL LOAFING Different Social Groups  (I) Social Facilitation Research on social facilitation Theories of social facilitation Overview (II) Social loafing Research on social loafing Causes of social loafing Cures for social loafing Research on Social Facilitation (Triplett, 1897) Condition Average Speed 1. Unpaced, but against 24 mph time 2. Paced by another cyclist; no competition 31 mph 3. Paced by another cyclist, with competition 33 mph Eh? You Want me to do it Faster?  Allport (1920) The mere presence of other members of one's species ('conspecifics') can facilitate performance. Animal Research on Social Facilitation 1. Cockroaches run faster in the presence of other cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969). 2. Chickens eat more in the presence of other chickens (Keeling & Hurnik, 1996). 3. Ants excavate more sand in the presence of other ants (Chen, 1937). 4. Pairs of rats copulate more in the presence of other rats (Larsson, 1956).  Participants were 32 Blatta orientalis. Cockroach Study (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, The cockroaches learned a 1969) simple runway task or a more complex maze task either on their own or in the presence of other cockroaches.  Results 280 Running Time (seconds) 230 180 130 80 30 Alone Audience Alone Audience Simple Maze Complex Maze  Markus (1978): Method u Participants were asked to… 1. Take off their own shoes 2. Put on a large pair of shoes and socks 3. Put on a lab coat that tied at the back 4. Remove the coat, shoes, and socks 5. Put their own shoes back on  The presence of others led to better performance for Tasks 1 and 5 because these are familiar tasks (i.e., Markus social facilitation). (1978): Results The presence of others led to worse performance for Tasks 2, 3, and 4 because these are unfamiliar tasks (i.e., social inhibition). Theories of All animals are genetically predisposed to become Social physiologically aroused in the presence of members Facilitation: of their own species. Drive Theory Increased physiological (Zajonc, arousal – or drive – facilitates the dominant 1965) response. Drive Theory (Zajonc, 1965) 1. For simple or familiar tasks, the dominant response is usually the correct response. Hence, increased drive leads to better performance (social facilitation). 2. For complex or novel tasks, the dominant response is usually an incorrect response. Hence, increased drive leads to worse performance (social inhibition).  Mere presence is not enough. Actors must believe that observers are evaluating their performance. Evaluation Apprehension Theory Apprehension about this evaluation causes physiological (Cottrell, 1972) arousal. This physiological arousal then facilitates the dominant response.  Participants engaged in three well- learned tasks on their own or in the presence of two observers. Social facilitation did not occur when Cottrell, the observers were: Wack, (a) inattentive (blindfolded) Sekerak, and (b) only incidentally present (waiting to take part in a different experiment) Rittle (1968) Social facilitation did occur when the observers were not blindfolded and carefully attended to the participants’ performance. Evaluation Apprehension in Cockroaches? "I'd better run this maze fast or Davo and the boys will laugh at me! "  The presence of others distracts the actor from attending to the task at hand. Distraction- The actor experiences a conflict Conflict between attending to others or attending to the task. Theory This conflict heightens the actor's (Baron, 1986) physiological arousal. This physiological arousal then facilitates the dominant response.  Stimuli must be Mere presence is sufficient to conspecifics? increase drive? Drive theory YES YES NO Evaluation YES The actor must Comparison apprehension theory also feel that he/she is being Between NO evaluated. Theories Distraction- Any distracting YES conflict theory stimuli will increase drive.  Zajonc's (1965) Advice to Students "Study all alone, preferably in an isolated cubicle, and arrange to take your examination in the company of many other students, on stage, and in the presence of a large audience. The examination results would be beyond your wildest expectations, provided, of course, you learned the material quite thoroughly" (Zajonc, 1965, p. 274).  uSocial loafing is a decrease in individual effort and Social Loafing performance that occurs when a group of people perform the same task. Research on Participants were asked to pull on a rope that was Social Loafing attached to a dynamometer (measures amount of force exerted). The Ringelmann Effect Participants took part (Ringelmann, either alone or in groups of 2, 3, or 8. 1913)  Results (Ringelman, 1913) 70 65 60 Force per person (Kg) 55 Expected performance 50 Actual performance 45 40 35 30 25 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of people in the group  u Decreased performance could Two be due to: Explanations for the u (1) Coordination loss (e.g., Ringelmann not all pulling at the same Effect time or pulling at the same time but in different directions) (Steiner, u (2) Motivation loss (i.e., 1972) social loafing) Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham (1974) 1. Real Groups Condition: Participants pulled on a rope with other participants. 2. Pseudo-Groups Condition: Participants pulled on a rope with others, but the others were confederates of the experimenter who did not actually pull on the rope.  Results (Peckham !974) 0 Percentage reduction in individual -5 Potential individual Motivation loss performance Pseudo-Groups -10 pull (%) Real Groups -15 Co-ordination loss -20 -25 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of people in the group  Participants clapped and cheered as loudly as possible either alone or in groups of 2, 4, or 6 Latané, people. Williams, and Harkins (1979): Experiment 1 Dependent variable: Noise level  Percentage Group Size reduction in the amount of noise produced by each person (relative to alone Experiment condition) 1: Results 2-person group 29% reduction 4-person group 49% reduction 6-person group 60% reduction  Latané et al. (1979): Experiment 2 Participants were blindfolded and given headphones and asked to shout as loudly as possible either alone or in groups of 2, 4, or 6 people. In pseudo-group conditions, participants believed that they were performing with others, but in fact they were performing alone.  Results (Latané et al, 1979) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Percentage reduction in individual -10 Motivation loss Potential individual -20 performance shouting (%) Pseudo-Groups -30 Real Groups -40 Co-ordination loss -50 -60 -70 Number of people in the group  Latané et al.'s (1979) results have been replicated in India, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, Cross- and Malaysia (Gabrenya, Wang, & Latané, 1985). Cultural Differences However, when tasks are more important and in Social meaningful than clapping and shouting, the social loafing effect has been found to be Loafing reversed in collectivist cultures: (Smith & Participants from individualist cultures perform Bond, 1998) worse in groups whereas participants from collectivist cultures perform better in groups (Earley, 1989, 1993; Gabrenya et al., 1985; Matsui, Kakuyama, & Onglatco, 1987).  Output equity: You believe that others loaf, so you do too (Jackson & Harkins, 1985). Submaximal goal-setting: There is less compulsion to exert oneself in Causes large groups. of Social Loafing Lack of identifiability: Participants find it easier to 'hide in the crowd' in larger groups. Lack of responsibility: You feel less responsible for the group outcome (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989).  Personal identifiability: Social loafing is reduced if people realize that their performance can be traced back to them (Williams, Cures for Harkins, & Latané, 1981). Social Loafing Task attractiveness: Social loafing is reduced for attractive tasks (Zaccaro, 1984).  Personally meaningful tasks: Social loafing is reduced for personally meaningful tasks (Williams & Karau, 1991). (c) Cures for Social Loafing Performance-reward contingency: Social loafing is reduced for tasks on which good performance is rewarded (Sheppard & Wright, 1989). Next week… u Intragroup Processes Continued…