INFLUENCE

CHAPTER 7

Mary Ann D. Villar

Influence
An interpersonal undercurrent of social influence flows beneath the surface of most
groups, pushing members together toward greater consensus, uniformity, and
conformity.
 Outline

Majority Influence: The Power of the Many

Minority Influence: The Power of the Few
Sources of Group Influence
Application: Understanding Juries
 Majority Influence: The
Power of the Many
Social pressure exerted by the larger
portion of a group (the majority),
directed toward individual members and
smaller factions within the group (the
minority).
Conformity
and
Independence

Asch Situation
An experimental procedure developed by
Solomon Asch in his studies of conformity to
group opinion. Participants believed they were
making perceptual judgments as part of a group,
but the other members were trained to make
deliberate errors on certain trials.
Compliance
Conversion
Congruence
Types of Conformity
II. Conformity
or Independence
Most of Asch’s subjects displayed one of two forms of social
response to the group pressure: compliance or independence.
Some questioned their own discernment and ended up
believing that the others were right. But most thought the
majority was wrong: They “suspected that the majority were
‘sheep’ following the first responder, or that the majority were
victims of an optical illusion; nevertheless, these suspicions failed
to free them at the moment of decision” (Asch, 1955, p. 33).
Anticonformity (or Counterconformity) Deliberately expressing opinions,
making judgments, or acting in ways that are different from those of the
other group members or the group’s norms in order to challenge the group
and its standards rather than simply for the purpose of expressing one’s
personal preferences.
Anticonformity (or
counterconformity)
Deliberately expressing
opinions, making judgments, or
acting inways that are different
from those of the other
groupmembers or the group’s
norms in order to challengethe
group and its standards rather
than simply for thepurpose of
expressing one’s personal
preferences.
 III. Conformity across Contexts

Asch studied conformity in newly formed

groups working on a very easy task that was Unanimity
not particularly consequential. The
members did not know each other well; they agreement by all people
sat together in a well-lit room; they usually involved concensus.
announced their decisions aloud. Did these
details matter? Once Asch confirmed the
ubiquity of conformity, he and other
researchers systematically searched for
factors that influence conformity and
independence.
 Strong and Weak Situations
Asch studied conformity in a social situation that was simple, but also strong. Weak
situations do not pressure people to act as everyone else does, and so their actions in
such settings tend to be shaped more by their personal proclivities rather than by social
constraints. Strong situations, in contrast, leave very little opportunity for people to act in
unusual or idiosyncratic ways (Mischel, 1977).
 Crutchfield situation
An experimental procedure developed by Richard Crutchfield
to study conformity. Participants who signaled their responses
using an electronic response console believed they were
making judgments as part of a group, but the responses of the
other members that appeared on their console’s display were
simulated.
The Crutchfield situation sacrificed face-to-faceinteraction
between the participant and the confeder-ates, but was
efficient: Crutchfield could study five ormore people in a
single session, and he did not needto recruit confederates.
Because group members’responses were private, however,
fewer people con-formed in the Crutchfield situation
relative to theAsch situation (Bond & Smith, 1996). The
procedurewas also very unusual—atleastatthattime.Nowa-
days it is far more usual for group members to interactat a
distance: Online groups are, in a sense, the mod-ern form of
the Crutchfield situation
social impact theory
An analysis of social influence,which proposes
that the impact of any source of
influencedepends upon the strength, the
immediacy, and the num-ber of people
(sources) present (developed by Bibb Latané).

Asch studied men (mostly).
IV. Who Will Conformity across People
Conform?
Conformity across the Sexes
Conformity across Cultures
and Eras
All lived in the United States. They were college
students. They lived at a time when their culture was
politically conservative. Would Asch’s findings hold with
other kinds of people, from other cultures, and in other
groups facing different issues?
Asch discovered that people differed, to an
extraordinary degree, in their reaction to the
conformity situation. Those who conformed
often became increasingly disoriented as the
study progressed, hesitating before they disagreed
and apologizing to the others for their temerity.
Did Asch underestimate the urge to conform by studying
mostly men? Is it not true that women are more likely to be
swayed by others’ opinions, whereas men are independent and
steadfast? When this possibility was first tested by researchers,
they often discovered that the sexes did differ—that women
were more likely to conform than men.
In the years since Asch first published his findings, other
researchers have replicated his basic procedure in dozens of
countries, including the United States, Britain, Belgium, Fiji,
Holland, Kuwait, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. When Rod Bond
and crosscultural psychologist Peter Smith (Bond & Smith,
1996) surveyed these studies, they concluded that Asch may
have underestimated conformity by studying people living in a
relatively individualistic culture.

Conversion theory
A conceptual analysis of the
cognitive and interpersonal
processes that mediate the
direct and indirect impact
of a consistent minority on
the majority (developed by
Serge Moscovici).
Minority
Influence
: The
Power of
Comparison or
Validation?
Delayed Social
Influence
the Few
Conversion theory proposes Moscovici and his colleagues, in
that minorities influence in one of the first tests of the
a different way than theory, reversed the usual Asch
majorities do. Minorities, situation by inserting two
confederates in six-person groups
Moscovici theorized,
and then arranging for the
influence through the
confederates to systematically
validation process (see disagree with the majority’s
Figure 7.5). decision.
 Idiosyncrasy credit
II. An explanation for the leniency groups sometimes
display toward high-status members who violate

Predicting
group norms; the hypothetical interpersonal credit
or bonus that is earned each time an individual
makes a contribution to the group but the credit

Minority
decreases each time the individual influences others,
makes errors, or deviates from the group’s norms
(proposed by Edwin Hollander).

Influence The Diligence of Dissenters

Part of the secret of the unique influence of

minorities lies in the quality of their argumentation.
 III. Dynamic Social Impact Theory

An extension of Latané’s social impact theory, which assumes that

influence is a function of the strength, the immediacy, and the number
of sources present and that this influence results in consolidation,
clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity in groups that are
spatially distributed and interacting repeatedly over time (developed by
Bibb Latané).
Dynamic Social Impact Theory

Consolidation Continuing diversity

As individuals interact with Because of clustering,members of
oneanother regularly, their actions, minorities are often shielded
attitudes, andopinions become fromthe influence attempts of the
more uniform. majority, andtheir beliefs continue
within the group.
Correlation
Over time, the group members’opinions on a
variety of issues—even ones thatare not
discussed openly in the group—converge,so
that their opinions become correlated. Stu-
dents living on the same floor of a dorm
Sources of
Group Influence
Many people think of conformity in a negative
way. They assume that people who change to
agree with others are so weak-willed that they
lack the inner fortitude to stand up for their
personal beliefs. This pejorative view,
unfortunately, underestimates the complexity of
social influence, for individuals in any group
change their behavior for a variety of reasons
(see Figure 7.6).
 I. Implicit Influence

implicit influence Unlike explicit, consciously recognized social

influence, unnoticed and largely automatic cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral reactions to other people.
 interpersonal influence Change-promoting interpersonal
processes based on group members selectively encouraging
conformity and discouraging or even punishing
nonconformity.

IV.
Interpersonal
Influence
 Diffusion of responsibility A reduction of

V. When personal responsibility experienced by

individuals in groups and social collectives
(identified by John Darley and Bibb Latané

Influence in their studies of bystanders’ failures to

help someone in need). Bystander effect The tendency
for people to help less when they
Inhibits: The know others are present and
capable of helping. The effect

Bystander was initially thought to be the

result of apathy and a selfish

Effect unwillingness to get involved, but

research suggests a number of
cognitive and social processes,
Human groups could not form, remain
intact, and achieve their goals if their including diffusion of
members did not continually, and responsibility and
successfully, influence one another. misinterpretation that help is not
This readiness to cooperate and needed, contribute to the effect.
conform, however, can cause
individuals to follow when they should
lead and comply when they would be
better off resisting. A number of
negative, dysfunctional group
Application: Understanding Juries

I. Jury Dynamics

II. How Effective Are Juries?

II. Improving Juries

I. Jury Dynamics
 The jury situation is designed to foster careful
decision making and tolerance for all viewpoints,
but at its core, a jury is a group. The jury’s final
decision depends not only on the evidence
presented at the trial, the attorneys’ arguments, and
the judge’s instructions, but also on social influence.
II. How Effective Are Juries?
Determining the effectiveness of juries as deciders of guilt or
innocence is a complicated task, for we can never know when the
jury has been correct or incorrect in condemning or freeing a
defendant. If a clear criterion for determining guilt existed, juries
would not be necessary in the first place
 II. Improving Juries
Group structure. Members of smaller juries participate at more equal rates; smaller juries are more cohesive;
and members of larger juries exchange more information.
Representativeness. Smaller groups are not as representative of the community as larger ones. For example, if
a community was 10% Latino and 90% Anglo, in all probability, about 80% of the 12-person juries selected from
that community would include at least one Latino, but only 40% of the 6-person juries would contain Latinos.
Majority influence. The majority’s influence may be greater in smaller juries, because the likelihood of
finding a partner for one’s minority coalition becomes smaller.
Voting. The Supreme Court assumed that a 5 to 1 vote in a 6-person jury was the same as a 10 to 2 split in a
12-person group. But with the 10 to 2 vote, one is joined by a dissenting partner, whereas in the 5 to 1 vote, one
faces the majority alone. As a result, the likelihood of a hung jury is greater in larger juries (Kerr & MacCoun,
1985).
Verdicts. Despite size-related changes in group dynamics, small juries and large juries do not appear to differ
significantly in the types of verdicts reached—except in certain civil cases, when smaller juries tend to return
larger damages (Saks, 1977; Saks & Hastie, 1978; Saks & Marti, 1997).
Procedural Innovations

Whereas jurors were once

forbidden from taking notes or
discussing the case prior to
deliberations, in a series of
modifications, courts have
experimented with various types
of procedural changes to
determine if notes help jurors to
remember and process the
volumes of information they
receive during the trial.
 Voir dire
The oral or written questioning of prospective jurors by counsel or the
judge.
Attitude is greatly shaped by
Influence and Association
-Jim Rohn-

Thank you
and
Godbless

MARY ANN D. VILLAR