08. Social Influence II

Question 1

Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954)

Answer 1

• We gain info from others
• Disagreement = uncertainty (threatening)
• A more important group = more pressure for uniformity (and conformity)
• A more uncertain situation = greater reliance on others = greater conformity

Question 2

Why are we influenced by groups?

(according to studies)

Answer 2

Deutsch & Gerard (1955)
- Normative influence – wanting to be liked.
- Informational influence – wanting to be right.

Cialdini & Goldstein (2004)
- Third motivation: Avoid deviant self-concept/maintain positive self-concept

Question 3

Does “conformity” in the Asch paradigm vary by culture?

Answer 3

• Lower conformity in hunter-gatherer societies, higher in agrarian
• Hunter-gatherer societies: focus on survival (can be threatened by false perception of reality)
• Agrarian societies: focus on group living (can be threatened by lack of harmony)
• Lower conformity in individualistic cultures vs collectivits
• Conformity increases with female participants
• Less conformity over time in USA

Question 4

Values in the Asch Paradigm

Answer 4

• Asch: conformity is bad, we should be honest (morally)
• Campbell: consensus is good, but truth is still better (people trust others to tell the truth = good thing)
• Hodges and Geyer (2006): situation places multiple demands on participants and it is not clear which is ‘most important’

Question 5

Direct vs indirect effects

Answer 5

• Direct: conformity
• Indirect: internal doubt

Question 6

What is Minority Influence (Moscovici et al., 1969)?

Answer 6

• Majority influence -> public change (compliance)
• Minority influence -> private change (conversion)
• Deviants (a minority of confederates deliberately giving the wrong answer) increase %conformity with %deviant

No-one has ever fully replicated the results

Question 7

Conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980)

Answer 7

• Attention to incorrect arguments leads to indirect effects (internal doubt -> agreement)

Evidence:
- Moscovici & Personnaz (1980) – after-image effects in blue-green slide paradigm
- Wood et al (1994) meta-analysis – minorities less persuasive on direct measures… but not indirect
- Perez & Mugny (1987) – pro-abortion message portrayed as minority or majority position; no direct effect, but increase in support for birth control (indirect!)
- Alvaro & Crano (1997) – message advocating gay people serving in the military; minority influence increases opposition to gun control (indirect effect?)