IIPM GD 2010 1

Handout-5 Influence in Groups

Group Dynamics

The Nature & Impact of INFLUENCE In Groups

Social Influence in Groups
Social Influence is the general term used to refer to the interpersonal processes that change group members’
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
We can consider two flows of influence: from majority to individuals called Majority Influences; &
From individual or a small faction to Majority called Minority influence

The Asch Experiment – Read in Minicase handout

Social Impact Theory

According to the Social Impact Theory of Bibb Latane, the impact of any source of influence depends upon
the strength, the immediacy, and the number of people (sources) present.
Asch found that if an individual comes to know that a majority group has arrived at a decision as a group
(and not independently), the individual will NOT conform to the group regardless of the size of the
group because the individual treats it as one source of influence.
On the other hand, if a group of 6 people arrive at the same decision independently, they have far greater
impact on an individual to conform, because it becomes same as 6 different sources of influence.
In fact, two 2-person groups are more influential than one 4-person group.
Types of Conformity
Conformance does not always mean that the individual has converted to the views of the majority. There
are different types of conformity (or non conformity) as follows:
Compliance (or acquiescence) – occurs when an individual agrees with the majority in public but disagrees
in private
Conversion – represents a true change of opinion in that the individual agrees with the majority view both
in public and private.
Non-conformity can be two types:
Independence – the individual disagrees with group in public and private, and takes a decision based only
on his/her own beliefs
Anti-conformity (counter conformity) – a member deliberately opposes the majority view in order to
challenge the majority rather than express one’s own views
Sometimes anti-conformity is used deliberately in the form of a ‘devil’s advocate’ to encourage contra
views
When an individual agrees with the majority view right from the beginning, she/he is not called a
‘conformist’. They are said to display Congruence.
Limits of Majority Influence
Conformity across cultures – Asch performed his experiments in America which is an individualistic
society. Later studies have shown that in collectivist societies like in Asia, the conformity is much
higher than (38%) what Asch found in America. This increased conformance is driven both by
individualism and power distance
Conformity across times – Studies by two social scientists Bond and Smith have shown that conformity has
DECREASED between 1952 and 1994. When Asch conducted his experiments in the 1950’s social
norms stressed respect for authority and traditional values in American society. As social norms
change, conformity does change, though there is no empirical evidence to say it necessarily changes
with time.
Conformity across sexes – studies have shown that women are more conforming than men. However, it is
found that they are conforming more in face-to-face situations rather than in non-face-to-face
situations
One reason for this could be that women want to maintain positive relationships, while men use their
disagreement as a means to dominate others
Conformity Across People - Asch found in his experiments that some people agreed with the wrong
answer of the majority in every trial, while some others never agreed with the majority view unless
they felt it was the right view according to them.
IIPM GD 2010 2
Handout-5 Influence in Groups
Age, personality and expertise are all found to impact the extent to which an individual will conform with
majority. The following table lists personality characteristics that are associated with conformity and
non-conformity.
Personality Characteristics & Conformity/ non-conformity
Characteristic Reaction to influence
Age Conformity increases with age
Authoritarianism Authoritarians generally tend to be
conformists
Birth order First born children tend to conform more than
later-born children
Dependency People who are high in dependency show
higher conformance
Characteristic Reaction to influence
Gender identity Women are found to conform more than men
Individualism-collectivism Collectivists conform more than individualists

Individuation High individuators (people with need to

differentiate themselves in public) dissent
more than conform
Intelligence Less intelligent people who are not confident
of their own abilities conform more
Characteristic Reaction to influence
Need for closure When need for closure is high, conformance is
high
Need for uniqueness People with high need for uniqueness (NFU)
tend to be dissenters rather than conformists
Self-blame People with tendency to blame one-self for
negative outcomes, tend to be conformists
Characteristic Reaction to influence

Self-esteem Individuals with low self-esteem

conform more
Self-monitoring High self-monitors conform more

Stability Stability, conscientiousness and

agreeability make people conform
more
“Yea” saying “Yea” sayers conform more than
people who carefully think through
their answers
• Conformity across group sittings: It is found that conformity increases or decreases according to
different situations. These are listed in the following tables.
Factor Conformity Increases if Conformity decreases if
Accountability Individuals are striving for Individuals are accountable for
acceptance by others their own actions
Accuracy Majority’s position is reasonable Majority’s position is
or accurate unreasonable or inaccurate
Anonymity Responses are made publicly or Responses are anonymously
IIPM GD 2010
Handout-5 Influence in Groups
face-to-face
Attraction Members are attracted to group or
its members
Awareness Individuals realize that their
position is unusual
Cohesion Cohesion is high
Commitment to position Individuals are publicly
committed to their position
Commitment to group Individuals are committed to
group
3
made and members cannot see
each other
Members dislike each other
Individuals do not realize that
their position is unusual
Cohesion is low
Individuals are not committed to
their position publicly
Groups or memberships are
temporary

Factor Conformity Increases if Conformity decreases if

Priming If unnoticed cues in the setting Situational cues prime
prime conformity independence
Size Majority is large Majority is small
Task Task is important but very Task is important and easy, or
difficult task is trivial
Unanimity Majority is Unanimous Several Members disagree with
the majority

Minority Influence
Even though groups generally tend to go with majority views, under certain circumstances, the majority
may agree with a minority (or individual) views.
Some of these conditions are:
Consistency – If the individual argues his views unwaveringly
Shows confidence and insight
Presents compelling and coherent argument
Minority preface their dissent with conformity
Hollander (1971) developed the concept of Idiosyncrasy credits to explain a group’s positive reaction to a
minority who preface their dissent with conformity
High status members who have contributed in the past to a group’s goals tend to extract greater
conformance from majority members
Idiosyncrasy credits accumulate as members interact and contribute to the group’s goals.
Such members with high credits are usually tolerated by majority when they dissent
Sometimes a person who consistently disagrees with majority may be able to get the majority’s
conformance; however, studies show that minorities who accumulate idiosyncrasy credits tend to
extract greater conformance from the majority
Larger and growing minorities have more influence on majority; however, the dissent should not threaten
the integrity of the group itself. Many groups will accept debate and disagreements, but if it impacts the
very integrity of the group the majority will quash the majority
Minorities influence indirectly by getting others converted to their view point; whereas, majority members
influence directly by making others comply with their views
Influence as Social Impact
Influence in groups is two-sided
Majority expect the minority to conform to their views; while minorities expect the majority to re-examine
their views and revise their position
But change in the group is a mutual process where both majority and minority influence each other.
The interaction between minority and majority in groups leads to FOUR tendencies:
Consolidation – over time the majority grows in size and minority dwindles
Clustering – people are impacted by their closest neighbors and tend to form clusters
Correlation - Over time the members’ opinions on issues outside those discussed in the group also tend
to converge
Continuing diversity – because of clustering minority members get shielded from the majority and
their divergent views continue
IIPM GD 2010 4
Handout-5 Influence in Groups
Sources Of Group Influence
Studies show that there are three broad sources of group influence:
Information influence – occurs when group members use others’ views as information source
Normative Influence – occurs when group members internalize their group’s norms and strive to
act in ways consistent with those norms
Interpersonal influence – Social influence that results from other group members selectively
encouraging conformity and discouraging or even punishing non-conformity
Bystander Effect
The tendency of people in groups to help less when they know others are present and capable of helping is
called Bystander Effect.
It was thought that bystander effect was a result of people’s apathy and selfish unwillingness. However,
studies have shown other cognitive reasons:
Diffusion of responsibility – it is a reduction of personal responsibility felt by individuals when
they are in a group
Information influence – individuals often rely on others to tell them what to do; however, in
emergencies, every individual’s silence makes others feel there is no need to do anything
Evaluation apprehension – when individuals feel that they may embarrass themselves by doing
something inappropriate
Influence & Ostracism
Stanley Schachter (1951) studied groups to find out how group members persuade a dissenter to agree or
ultimately ostracize her/him
He classified the members into (a) deviants – who disagree with majority always (b) sliders – those that
initially disagreed but later agreed with majority (c) Mode – those that consistently agreed with the
majority
He found the following:
Initially the group communicated more with the Mode, deviant and slider equally; and, once they learnt
that the mode agreed with the majority view, their communication with mode dropped
They continued to communicate with the deviant and slider; since the slider appeared to be coming around
to the majority view, their communication with the slider was more than with the deviant.
Once the slider came around to agreeing with the Majority, their communication dropped and now all
communication was directed at the deviant to try and get him/her to agree with the majority view
He found that during the first 35 minutes of discussion in the group, communication with slider and mode
was low and increased with the deviant. At the 35th minute, the more cohesive majority groups, rejected
the deviant and communication dropped.
It is the tendency of group members to evaluate more harshly a disliked ingroup member who performs an
offensive behavior than an outgroup member who performs the same offence.
Conclusion
Since managers have to be leaders who influence and inspire others, it is important to understand how
influence works within groups
An understanding of influence in groups thus helps a manager to extract conformance when required, help
create better team wok within the organization.