Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Influence - Coggle Diagram
Social Influence
-
Asch's Study
Procedure: - Ps and confederates were presented with 4 lines' 3 comparison lines and 1 standard line
- They were asked to state which of the 3 lines was the same length as the stimulus line
- The real P always answered last or second to last
- Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18 trials
- Asch observed how often the P would give the same incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer
Findings:
- 36.8% conformed
- 25% never conformed
- 75% conformed at least once
- In a control trial, only 1% of responses given by Ps were incorrect (eliminating eyesight/perception as extraneous variables - increasing validity of conclusions)
Aim:
- Investigate conformity and majority influence
-
Participants:
- 123 male American undergraduates in groups of 6; consisting of 1 true
participant and 5 confederates
Evaluation
Strengths:
- High internal validity: strict control over variables and pre-experiment assessments ensured reliable cause-and-effect relationships
- Lab experiment: controlled conditions facilitate easy replication, enhancing reliability and reducing chance outcomes
- Ethical considerations: deception breaches ethical guidelines, but debriefing minimised ethical impact without affecting findings' validity
- NSI: Ps conformity to fit in with the group supports the concept that people conform to gain social acceptance despite private disagreements
Weaknesses:
- Lacks ecological validity: based on perceptions of simple lines, limiting applicability to real-life conformity scenarios with more variables
- Lacks population validity: limited to American male undergraduates, potentially biased against generalising findings to other demographics
- Ethical issues: involved deception, potential psychological harm, necessitating a cost-benefit analysis but not impacting validity or reliability
- Validity concerns: criticised for reflecting 1950s anti-communist sentiments, potentially affecting results' generalisability across different time periods
-
-
-
-
Minority influence
Moscovici's study
Procedure:
- Lab experiment with a group setup of two confederates (minority) and four Ps (majority)
- Ps viewed 36 blue slides, each varying in shade
- Each P stated whether the slide was blue or green
- Confederates consistently claimed the slides were green on two-thirds of the trials
- Observations recorded how often real Ps agreed with the minority view
- Control group had only Ps, no confederates
Findings:
- Consistent minority view: about 8% of Ps agreed the slides were green
- Inconsistent minority view: about 1% of Ps agreed the slides were green
- Demonstrates the importance of consistency for a minority to influence a majority
Aim:
- To observe how minorities can influence the majority
Participants:
- randomly selected Ps and confederates
Consistency:
- Moscovici's study highlights that consistency is crucial for minority influence
- Augmentation principle: consistent minority views are perceived as more serious and worthy of attention
- Diachronic consistency: consistency over time, where the minority does not change its views
- Synchronic consistency: consistency among all members of the minority group, reinforcing their shared views
Commitment:
- The majority is more likely to be influenced by a committed minority
- Demonstrating confidence and passion in their views suggests validity to the majority
- The majority is promoted to explore the minority's perspective, increasing the chance of influence
Flexibility:
- Majority is more likely to be influenced by a flexible majority
- Excessive consistency may portray the minority as inflexible and irrational
- Flexibility makes the minority appear reasonable, considerate, and cooperative, enhancing their appeal to the majority
Evaluation:
- Martin et al: minority views are more likely to be internalised compared to majority views
- Risk and the augmentation principle: minority views pose a risk, forcing the audience to reconsider their own views
- Real-life application: consistency, commitment, and flexibility can maximise influence of minority groups
- Limitations: majority group size, connections, and power can outweigh influence of minority views.
- Moscovici relies on artificial tasks and stimuli, lack mundane realism and ecological validity
-