180 C H A P T E R 6
skilled at the kinds of tasks the group must attempt spirits of the others. Vizintin and Canessa, in con-
(Anderson et al., 2001). But a person’s rise to a posi- trast, “did not inspire the same affection” (Read,
tion of status in a group cannot be predicted solely 1974, p. 141). They liked each other but had few
on the basis of their individual qualities, for different other friends within the group. Mangino, one of
groups value different attributes. The qualities that the younger men, was an exception; he liked
earn a person status in a boardroom differ from them both. Most of the others, however, quarreled
those that predict one’s prestige in a rugby team or with them constantly (see Figure 6.5).
a biker gang. Thus, predictions of status must take
into account the degree to which individuals’ attri- Attraction patterns like those in the Andes
butes match the qualities valued by the groups to group are not a disorganized jumble of likes and
which they belong: the person-group fit. In another dislikes but a network of stable social relationships.
group, Delgado might have been highly influential, Popular individuals (stars) receive the most positive
for he was quite articulate and socially skilled. In the sociometric nominations within the group; rejected
Andes group, however, the fit between his personal group members (outcasts) get picked on the most
qualities and the group was poor (see, too, Chapter 8’s when group members identify whom they dislike;
analysis of the sources of social power in groups). neglected isolates receive few nominations of any
kind; and the average members are liked by several
6-3b Attraction Relations others in the group. In the Andes group, for exam-
ple, Parrado was admired by all; he was, sociome-
Some of the Andes survivors rose to positions of trically, the star of the group. Delgado, in contrast,
authority, while others remained relatively power- was the group’s outcast; he had few friends in the
less. Yet, to describe the group in just these terms group, and the young men ridiculed him constantly
would be to miss a vital part of the group’s struc- for not doing his share of the work.
ture. The individuals were not just leaders and fol-
lowers but also friends and enemies. This network Like most groups, the Andes survivors’ attrac-
of likes and dislikes among the members is called by tion relations showed signs of reciprocity, transitivity,
many names, including attraction relations, social and homophily. Vizintin liked Canessa and Canessa
status, or sociometric structure. liked Vizintin in return. Such reciprocity, as noted
in Chapter 4, is a powerful tendency in most settings;
Sociometric Differentiation Just as status differ- it has been documented repeatedly in a variety of
entiation results in variations in status, so, too, groups, including football teams, police squads, psy-
sociometric differentiation results in a stable chotherapy groups, sororities, and classroom groups
ordering of members from least liked to most (Kandel, 1978; Newcomb, 1979; Wright, Ingraham,
liked. Consider, for example, the relationships & Blackmer, 1984). Exceptions to reciprocity some-
among the rank-and-file group members and the times occur, and some forms of attraction tend to be
four designated explorers in the Andes group, Tur- less reciprocal than other forms of attraction, but
catti, Parrado, Vizintin, and Canessa. Nearly every- these exceptions to the reciprocity principle are rela-
one admired Turcatti and Parrado; their warmth, tively rare (Segal, 1979). The Andes group also
optimism, and physical strength buoyed the sagging showed signs of network transitivity: Canessa liked
Mangino, Mangino liked Vizintin, and in confirma-
sociometric differentiation The development of tion of transitivity, Canessa liked Vizintin (A likes B,
stronger and more positive interpersonal ties between B likes C, so A likes C).
some members of the group, accompanied by decreases
in the quality of relations between other members of the Clusters, or cliques, also existed in the Andes
group. group, for Vizintin, Canessa, and Mangino formed
a unified coalition within the larger group. Others
rarely hesitated to show their disdain for the mem-
bers of this subgroup, but these three were joined
by strong bonds of attraction. Subgroups, in
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 181
Fernandez E.
Strauch
F. Turcatti
Strauch Vizintin
Zerbino Canessa
Mangino
Algorta
Paez
Methol Parrado
Delgado
F I G U R E 6.5 Patterns of attraction and friendship in the Andes survivors groups. Each member is represented
as a circle, and the lines (or edges) connecting each person to other individuals indicate who is linked to whom.
(The relationships are for illustration only; social network data were not collected for this group.)
Is It Better to Be Liked by Many or to Be Well Liked by Just a Few?
As groups increase in size, subgroups—cliques—often stars—liked by many—but some were rejected members
form, creating groups within groups, and these cliques with only a single tie keeping them connected to the
can substantially influence the cohesiveness of the group (“hangers-on”).
overall group. Sociologists Pamela Paxton and James
Moody (2003), for example, searched for and discov- Paxton and Moody discovered a member’s com-
ered cliques in their analysis of a particularly cohesive mitment to her sorority could be predicted by studying
group: a sorority in a university located in the southern her place in the group’s attraction network. Women in
United States that they gave the fictitious name of the Middles, for example, had a stronger sense of
Alpha Beta Chi, or ABX. ABX appeared to be a highly belonging to the group, particularly in comparison to
cohesive group with strong relations among all mem- the Separatists. But it was the women who had close ties
bers, but their analysis revealed the existence of four to other well-liked women who were the most satisfied
cliques within the overall group, which Paxton and with their group—even more so than women with
Moody labeled the Separatists, the Middles, the higher overall popularity scores, as indexed by how
Random Chapter Members, and the Small Clique. many times a woman was picked as a friend by others.
The Separatists, for example, were relatively isolated Also, within any particular clique, those women with
from the other members of the sorority but they more central locations within the clique tended to be
were closely linked to one another. The Middles, in less committed to their sorority as a whole. Devoting
contrast, had more ties to people outside of their one’s relational energies to a small subset of the group
clique. Also, some women in the sorority were sociometric may leave little time for the interpersonal work required
to maintain good relations with the entire group.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
182 C H A P T E R 6
general, display homophily: members of cliques tend Mangino initially likes only Vizintin and not
to be more similar to one another than they are to Canessa, he may change his attitude toward Canessa
the members of the total group. Members of the when he recognizes the strong bond between Vizin-
same racial category, for example, may join to tin and Canessa. Alternatively, group members who
form a coalition, or the group may separate naturally are disliked by the other group members may be
into all-male and all-female cliques (Lau & Mur- ostracized, as in the case of Delgado (Taylor, 1970).
nighan, 1998). Group members also often deliber- Finally, because the occurrence of a single negative
ately form and manipulate cliques within larger relationship within a group can cause the entire
groups by systematically including some individuals group to become unbalanced, large groups tend to
and excluding others (Adler & Adler, 1995). include a number of smaller, better balanced cliques
(Newcomb, 1981). The Andes group, for example,
Balance Theory Why do most groups’ attraction was somewhat unbalanced overall, but its subgroups
relations tend to be reciprocal, transitive, and tended to be very harmonious. As a result, the group
homophilous? According to Fritz Heider’s (1958) was high in cohesiveness (Rambaran et al., 2015).
balance theory, some patterns of relationships in
groups are more structurally sound, or balanced, 6-3c Communication Relations
than others, so groups naturally tend to gravitate
toward these rather than toward unbalanced states. In the Andes group, the three leaders stayed in close
In the Andes survivors, the triad of Vizintin, Canessa, communication, discussing any problems among
and Mangino was balanced: everyone in it liked one themselves before relaying their interpretations to
another, so all bonds were positive. What would the other group members. The other members usu-
happen, however, if Mangino came to dislike ally routed all information to the threesome, who
Canessa? According to Heider, this group would then informed the rest of the group. In contrast, the
be unbalanced. Such a group pattern is considered so injured members were virtually cut off from com-
unstable that it has been given the ominous name munication with the others during the day, and they
“the forbidden triad” (Granovetter, 1973). In gen- occasionally complained that they were the last to
eral, a group is balanced if (1) all the relationships are know of any significant developments. These regular
positive, or (2) an even number of negative relation- patterns of information exchange among members of
ships occurs in the group. Conversely, groups are a group are called communication networks.
unbalanced if they contain an odd number of nega-
tive relations (Newcomb, 1963, 1981). Patterns of communication among group mem-
bers, like other structural features of groups, are some-
Because unbalanced sociometric structures gen- times deliberately set in place when the group is
erate tension among group members, people are organized. Many companies, for example, adopt a
motivated to correct the imbalance and restore the centralized, hierarchical communication network
group’s equilibrium. Heider noted that this restora- that prescribes how information is passed up to super-
tion of balance can be achieved either through psy- iors, down to subordinates, and horizontally to one’s
chological changes in the individual members or equals. Even when no formal attempt is made to
through interpersonal changes in the group. If organize communication, an informal communication
network will usually take shape over time. Moreover,
balance theory An analysis of social relations that this network tends to parallel status and attraction
assumes relationships can be either balanced (integrated patterns. Take the Andes group as a case in point:
units with elements that fit together without stress) or Individuals who occupied high-status roles—the
unbalanced (inconsistent units with elements that conflict
with one another). Unbalanced relationships create an communication network Patterns of information
unpleasant tension that must be relieved by changing transmission and exchange that describe who communi-
some element of the system (developed by Fritz Heider). cates most frequently and to what extent with whom.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 183
explorers, the food preparers, and the lieutenants— of their basic forms are graphed in Figure 6.6. In a
communicated at much higher rates and with more wheel network, for example, most group members
individuals than individuals who occupied the malin- communicate with just one person. In a comcon, all
gerer and injured roles (Shelly et al., 1999). members can and do communicate with all other
members. In a chain, communication flows from
Communication networks become more com- one person to the next in a line. A circle is a closed
plex and varied as groups increase in size, but some
Three-person networks
Wheel Comcon Pinwheel
Four-person networks
Wheel Kite Circle Comcon
Five-person networks
Wheel Y Circle Comcon
F I G U R E 6.6 Examples of common communication networks in small groups. These networks are a sample of
the various kinds of communication networks that can be created by opening and closing lines of communication
among members. In most of these examples, the lines are undirected ones, with information flowing back and forth
between members. Only the pinwheel has directed, one-way communication links. The Y, Kite, and Wheel are central-
ized networks; the others are decentralized.
SOURCE: Adapted from “Communication Networks,” by M. E. Shaw. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1). Copyright ©
1964 by Academic Press.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
184 C H A P T E R 6
chain, and a pinwheel is a circle where information efficiently monitor, collate, or route incoming and
flows in only one direction (Shaw, 1964). outgoing messages. Shaw noted that saturation can
occur in a decentralized network, but it becomes
Centrality is a particularly important feature of more likely when a group with a centralized struc-
communication networks. With centralized networks, ture is working on complex problems. Because the
one of the positions in the group has a very high “greater the saturation the less efficient the group’s
degree of centrality—it is located at the crossroads performance” (Shaw, 1964, p. 126), when the task
(the hub) of communications—relative to the other is simple, centralized networks are more efficient
positions in the group (e.g., the wheel, the kite, or than decentralized networks; when the task is com-
the Y in Figure 6.6). Groups with this type of struc- plex, decentralized networks are superior. In conse-
ture tend to use the hub position as the data- quence, groups tend to gravitate naturally to more
processing center, and its occupant typically collects decentralized network structures when the tasks
information, synthesizes it, and then sends it back to they must accomplish become more complex and
others. In decentralized structures, like the circle or multifaceted (Brown & Miller, 2000).
comcon, the number of channels at each position is
roughly equal, so no one position is more “central” These different types of centrality also influence
than another. These groups tend to use a variety of role allocations, overall commitment, and satisfaction
organizational structures when solving their problems, with membership in the group (Krackhardt & Porter,
including the so-called each to all pattern, in which 1986; Lovaglia & Houser, 1996). Individuals who
everyone sends messages in all directions until some- occupy centralized positions in centralized networks,
one gets the correct answer (Shaw, 1964, 1978). such as a wheel or a Y (see Figure 6.6), are nearly
always thought to be the leader of their group, even
Network Centralization and Performance Early when they are randomly assigned to this position
studies of communication networks suggested that (Leavitt, 1951). In studies of employees in work
groups with centralized networks outperformed groups, those who are more central in their network
decentralized networks (Bavelas, 1948, 1950; Bavelas are less likely to quit than are employees at the periph-
& Barrett, 1951; Leavitt, 1951). A group with a wheel ery of the company’s communication network (Fee-
structure, for example, took less time to solve pro- ley, 2000). Peripheral members are also more likely to
blems, sent fewer messages, detected and corrected quit in clumps. Because individuals in decentralized
more errors, and improved more with practice than positions are connected to very few of the other
a group with a decentralized structure, such as a circle members, when one peripheral member leaves the
or comcon (Shaw, 1964, 1978). The only exceptions group, the individuals located near that person in
occurred when the groups were working on compli- the network also tend to leave the group (Krackhardt
cated tasks such as arithmetic, sentence construction, & Porter, 1986). Finally, centralized networks, by def-
problem solving, and discussions. When the task was inition, have fewer centralized positions than decen-
more complex, the decentralized networks outper- tralized positions. In consequence, the overall level of
formed the centralized ones. satisfaction in a centralized group is almost always
lower than the level of satisfaction in a decentralized
These results led social psychologist Marvin E. group (Shaw, 1964).
Shaw to propose that network efficiency is related
to information saturation. When a group is working Directional (Up–Down) Effects Only small
on a problem, exchanging information, and making groups with decentralized communication net-
a decision, the central position in the network can works outperform groups with centralized net-
best manage the inputs and interactions of the works. Once the group becomes too large,
group. As work progresses and the number of com- members can no longer keep up with the high
munications being routed through the central rate and quantity of information they are receiving.
member increases; however, a saturation point can Therefore, most organizations manage information
be reached at which the individual can no longer
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 185
flow by adopting hierarchical communication net- however. He discovered something hidden beneath
works (Goetsch & McFarland, 1980). In such net- the surface of the groups at the Hudson School that
works, information can pass either horizontally the staff had overlooked. Using the sociometric meth-
between members on the same rung of the com- ods that he pioneered, he discovered that the girls who
munication ladder or vertically up and down from ran away were joined together in an unnoticed web of
followers to leaders and back (Jablin, 1979). social connections and that these connections facili-
tated the transmission of influence and ideas—some
Upward communications tend to be very differ- of which included the notion of leaving Hudson
ent from downward communications (Sias, Krone, School behind (Moreno, 1934; see Chapter 2).
& Jablin, 2002). Downward-flowing information
moves from the leaders to the followers of the Social network analysis (SNA) is particularly
group, and generally includes explanations of actions useful in making what is often unseen and unnoticed
to be taken, the reasons for actions, suggestions to act evident. Dyadic relations—status differences, likes
in a certain manner, and feedback concerning per- and dislikes, and patterns of communication—may
formance. In some cases, too, up–down messages are be clearly known by some in the group, but often
urgent, sent using more immediate channels of com- only a SNA will reveal the actual patterns and pro-
munication, such as email, rather than face-to-face cesses that sustain these relationships.
meetings (Byrne & LeMay, 2006). Upward commu-
nications from subordinates to superiors, in contrast, 6-4a Mapping Social Networks
include information on performance, insinuations
about a peer’s performance, requests for information, Social network analysts are the geographers of the
expressions of distrust, factual information, or grie- human terrain. They seek to map the connections
vances concerning the group’s policies. These that link individuals to one another and use that
upward communications, moreover, tend to be information to determine precisely where people
fewer in number, briefer, and more guarded than are located relative to each other in interpersonal
downward communications. In larger organizations, space. This approach dates back to some of the earliest
the upward flow of information may be much work in sociology and psychology, for these fields’
impeded by the mechanics of the transfer process founders all sought to make social relations tangible
and by the low-status members’ reluctance to send (Borgatti et al., 2009). These efforts, which included
information that might reflect unfavorably on their Moreno’s (1934) sociometric studies of attraction in
performance, abilities, and skills (Sias, 2009). This groups, experimental studies carried out at the Group
reticence of low-status members means that good Networks Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of
news travels quickly up the hierarchy, whereas the Technology (e.g., Bavelas, 1948; Leavitt, 1951), and
top of the ladder will be the last to learn bad news. studies of community-level patterns of informa-
tional influence (e.g., Granovetter, 1973), laid the
6-4 APPLICATION: SOCIAL foundation for social network analysis: A set of pro-
cedures defined by (a) a focus on the structures of
NETWORK ANALYSIS social groups and on linkages among group mem-
bers in particular; (b) the systematic measurement of
In the fall of 1932, the staff of the Hudson School for these structures; (c) the use of graphics to represent
Girls asked psychiatrist Jacob Moreno to help them these structures; and (d) the application of statistical
solve a problem. In the preceding two weeks no and mathematic procedures to quantify these struc-
fewer than 14 residents had run away from the school. tures (Freeman, 2004).
The girls were housed in various residences across the
facility, and the staff could not identify why these girls, The attraction patterns of the Andes survivors
at this time, decided to leave Hudson. Moreno could, in Figure 6.5 illustrate an application of SNA. Each
member, or node, is represented as a circle, and the
lines, or edges, connecting nodes indicate who is
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
186 C H A P T E R 6
linked to whom. The arrows indicate the direction of ■ Outdegree and indegree centrality can be
the relationship. An edge with a single arrow indicates calculated when ties are directed rather than
the relationship is a directed one, linking the sender to undirected. Outdegree is the number of links
the receiver. For example, the links between Zerbino directed out from the node, whereas indegree is
and Fito Strauch, Paez, and Delgado go out from the number of links directed in. Zerbino’s
Zerbino and are received by Strauch, Paez, and outdegree centrality, for example, is four, since
Delgado. An edge with arrows at both ends indicates he connects out to Delgado, Paez, Fito, and
a symmetric, reciprocal relationship (for example, Fernandez, but his indegree centrality is only
Zerbino and Fernandez). Distance, in social networks, one because only Fernandez directs a relation-
is defined by relationships rather than physical dis- ship to Zerbino. Outdegree and indegree cen-
tance. As noted in Chapter 3, two people who are trality are equivalent when the relationships
directly linked to one another, such as Zerbino and linking members are undirected, such as the
Fito Strauch, are separated by a distance of 1: one flow of communication in a back-and-forth
degree of separation. But it would take four steps or conversation or friends on Facebook (Wasser-
links for Zerbino to reach Vizintin—Zerbino ! Fito man & Faust, 1994; see Borgatti, 2005, for
Strauch ! Turcatti ! Canessa ! Vizintin—hence, more information about centrality indexes).
four degrees of separation.
■ Betweenness takes into account ties to more
Individuals in Networks SNA is a multilevel distant actors in the network (Freeman, 1979).
method. It yields information about each member A position with a high degree of betweenness is
of the network—the egocentric network—as well one that is located between many of the other
as insights into the group as a whole—the socio- individuals in the network. Turcatti, for
centric network. Starting with the individual-level example, has a much lower degree centrality
indexes, SNA describes each member’s location in than Fito Strauch, but higher betweenness
the network relative to the others. Where, for exam- since he joins the subgroup of Canessa, Vizin-
ple, were the cousins, Fito and Eduardo Strauch, tin, and Mangino to the rest of the group. An
located in the network? Were any members located individual in such a position often acts as the
on the fringes or isolated from the group altogether? go-between or gatekeeper, linking people in
Who was in a position to communicate most easily the network who could otherwise not contact
with the most members of the group? SNA answers one another.
these questions by calculating and organizing rela-
tional information about all the members, including ■ Closeness is determined by the distance to all
how central they are in the group, how many people other members of the group. Fito Strauch, for
link to them, and their location relative to other example, can reach all other members through
people in the network. Some key indexes are cen- short paths, whereas other group members
trality, betweenness, and closeness. (such as Delgado or Mangino) are separated
from others by greater distances.
■ Degree centrality is the number of connec-
tions or ties to a node. Fito Strauch, for outdegree The number of ties initiated by the individ-
example, was connected by 10 ties to others ual in a directed network.
and to him, whereas Delgado was linked to indegree The number of ties received by the individual
only two others. in a directed network.
betweenness The degree to which a group member’s
degree centrality The number of ties between group position in a network is located along a path between
members; the group’s degree centrality is the average of other pairs of individuals in the network.
the direct connections among group members. closeness The inverse of the distance, in terms of ties, of
an individual from all others in the network.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 187
Groups as Networks Unlike egocentric indexes too frequent contact with others, but they can also
that yield a value for every individual in the net- isolate members from the rest of the network.
work, sociocentric, or group-level, network Turcatti spanned the hole in the Andes group.
indexes describe the entire network—or, at least a
portion of it. Some common group-level features 6-4b Applying Social Network
of networks include size, density, cliques, and holes.
Analysis
■ Density is determined by how many people are
linked to one another out of the total possible Who influences, likes, dislikes, trusts, admires, or
number of links. The density of the Andes group, talks to whom in any group? A simple question,
for example, would be 1.0—the maximium—if but one that may not be easily answered with out
every one of its 13 members was linked to every first examining the group’s social network objec-
other member: 156 ties in all. (The formula for tively. Even when members’ interdependencies are
calculating the number of possible ties in any defined by the group’s organizational chart and the
group, mentioned in Chapter 1, is n(n–1) if defined roles of each member, this explicit, formal
relationships are directed and n(n–1)/2 if the structure may not correspond to the group’s informal
relationships are not directed.) However, for this actual structure. Consider, for example, the group of
group, density is much lower than 1.0 because twelve individuals diagrammed in Figure 6.7a.
many members are only linked to one or two Michael is the designated leader of this hypothetical
others and not to all 12—in fact, only 29 ties are group. He is responsible for three smaller teams
present in this group. Therefore, the density of within the group, and these teams are managed by
the group is .19 (29/156). Brandon, Ryan, and Jessica, respectively. At least,
that is the way the group is intended to function.
■ Cliques, or clusters, of subgroups often form The group’s actual structure, however, is very differ-
in larger networks. In the Andes group, ent from its formal, mandated structure. Michael is
Vizintin, Canessa, and Mangino formed a the ostensible group leader, but Jessica (who is the
unified coalition within the larger group based group’s staff coordinator) holds the more centralized
on friendship. Others rarely hesitated to show position within the group (see Figure 6.7b). Most of
their disdain for the members of this subgroup, the group members trust Jessica—and seek her out
but these three were joined by strong bonds of for advice and information—rather than Michael.
attraction. Also, Fito Strauch, Eduardo Strauch,
and Fernandez formed a second clique, in this Groups with unrecognized oddities in their con-
case based on authority—these three formed a nections among their members are at risk: communi-
leadership triumvirate within the group. cation flow within the group could be disrupted,
decisions might be made by the wrong people, and
■ Holes are “disconnections between nonredun- individuals may act in ways that are not consistent
dant contacts in a network” (Burt, 1997, p. 339) with their roles in the group. When, for example,
or the gaps in a network that separate clusters or Michael—the leader of the group charted in
cliques. Holes may have a positive effect on group Figure 6.7b, wanted to introduce changes to the
members if they buffer them from unwanted or group’s procedures to enhance its performance, he
first met with Brandon, Ryan, and Jessica to explain
density The degree of connectedness of the group’s what he had in mind. Unfortunately, Jessica did not
members, as indexed by the number of actual ties linking agree with the changes, and so the plan’s implementa-
members divided by the number of possibilities. tion did not go very smoothly. It was not until
cliques In social network analysis, subgroups of interre- Michael, recognizing Jessica’s status in the group, met
lated members within the larger group context. with her and adapted his plan so that it met with her
holes In social network analysis, gaps or schisms within approval, did the group adopt the changes he proposed
the network. (Krackhardt, 1996).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
188 C H A P T E R 6
Michael Jessica
Michael
Brandon Ryan Jessica
Daniel
David Emily Brandon Ryan Emily
Rachel Lauren Sarah David Sarah
Matt Tyler Lauren
Daniel Rachel
Matt
Tyler
(a) The group’s “formal” (official) structure (b) The group’s “informal” (unofficial) structure
F I G U R E 6.7 The informal (actual) structure of a group does not always match the group’s mandated (formal)
structure.
Social network analyst David Krackhardt, in his A group’s dynamics cannot be understood if the rela-
studies of the informal social networks in groups and tionships linking each member to one another and to
organizations, documented group after group whose the group are not understood. In group meetings, the
processes were disrupted and performance hobbled opinions of those with higher status carry more
by members’ misunderstanding of the group’s social weight than those of the rank-and-file members.
network. He concluded, “managers often pride When several members form a subgroup within the
themselves on understanding how these networks larger group, they exert more influence on the rest of
operate. They will readily tell you who confers on the group. And when people manage to gain the top
technical matters and who discusses office politics of the group’s status hierarchy, their influence over
over lunch. What’s startling is how often they are others also increases. When working in a group, its
wrong” (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993, p. 104). best to remain mindful of—and possibly openly dis-
cuss and clarify—the norms that guide members’
What’s the cure? Use social network analysis to actions, the roles needed within the group, and the
gather, integrate, and evaluate the web of relationship way the members are connected one to another.
ties that determine how the group gets it work done.
CHAPTER REVIEW
What is group structure? What are norms, how do they develop, and how do
they work to regulate behavior?
1. The arrangement and organization of a group’s
members, interrelations, and interactions define 1. Norms are implicit, self-generating, and stable
a group’s structure. standards for group behavior.
2. Three important elements of group structure ■ Prescriptive norms set the standards for
are norms, roles, and networks of relationships expected group behavior.
among the members.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 189
■ Proscriptive norms identify behaviors that differentiation): task roles pertain to the work
should not be performed. of the group and relationship roles pertain to
relations among members.
■ Descriptive norms define what most people
do, feel, or think in the group (the 3. Studies conducted by Bales (1950) and his
principle of social proof; Cialdini, 2009). colleagues suggest that the same person rarely
holds both the task role and the relationship
■ Injunctive norms differentiate between role in the group.
desirable and undesirable actions.
4. A number of theories examine roles and
2. Norms are both shared standards and internalized role-related processes.
standards (Fine, 2012). Milgram (1992) con-
firmed the surprisingly high level of discomfort ■ Benne and Sheats’s (1948) functional the-
experienced when one violates a social norm. ory identified 27 distinct roles in discussion
groups, including task roles, relationship
3. Sherif’s study, involving the autokinetic effect, roles, and individualistic roles.
indicated that norms develop gradually over
time as members align their actions with those ■ Interactionist role theories draw on Goff-
displayed by others (social tuning). man’s (1959) analyses of impression management
in their descriptions of the dynamic processes
4. Because norms are transmitted to other group involved in role negotiation. Bechky (2006)
members, they tend to be consensual, implicit, applied this model to her analysis of produc-
self-generating, and stable. Norms influence tion crews.
the actions of children as young as three years,
as well as individuals using social networking ■ Moxnes (1999) draws on Freud’s psychody-
sites, such as Facebook. namic theory to identify the deep roles in
groups, such as “mother” and “father” roles.
5. Norms influence a wide range of group pro-
cesses, including some unhealthy behaviors, ■ Bales’ (1970) Systematic Multiple Level
such as alcohol consumption, overeating, and Observation of Groups (SYMLOG)
eating disorders. assumes that role patterning is sustained
by three basic dimensions: dominance/
■ Individuals consume more alcohol when submissiveness (Up/Down), friendliness/
their group’s norms support unfriendliness (Positive/Negative), and
overindulgence. acceptance of task-orientation of author-
ity/nonacceptance of task-orientation of
■ In some cases, individuals misperceive their authority (Forward/Backward).
group’s norms, and this pluralistic ignorance
can further contribute to alcohol 5. Moreland and Levine’s (1982) theory of group
consumption. socialization describes the ways roles are allo-
cated to individuals and the ways in which
■ Crandall (1988) documented the influence members transition through the roles of
of norms in his study of eating disorders in prospective member, new member, full
groups. member, marginal member, and former
member.
What kinds of roles are common in groups, and how
do they influence the members? 6. The role differentiation and socialization
processes often create stress and tension for
1. Roles specify the types of behaviors expected groups and group members.
of individuals who occupy particular positions
within the group. ■ Role ambiguity occurs when the behaviors
associated with a role are poorly defined.
2. As members interact with one another, their
role-related activities become patterned (role
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
190 C H A P T E R 6
■ Role conflict occurs when group members ■ Centralized networks are most efficient,
occupy two or more roles that call for but as Shaw’s (1964) concept of informa-
incompatible behaviors (interrole conflict) or tion saturation suggests, not if tasks are too
when the demands of a single role are complex and require high levels of infor-
contradictory (intrarole conflict). mation exchange.
■ When role fit is low, members do not feel ■ Individuals who occupy more central
that they match the demands of their roles. positions in communication networks are
often more influential than those located at
How do social networks shape status, attraction, and the periphery, but because members are
communication processes in groups? usually less satisfied if in decentralized
positions, overall satisfaction is lower in
1. Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in centralized networks.
authority and power (e.g., status networks and
chains of command) through a status differenti- ■ More information generally flows
ation process. Groups naturally gravitate toward downward in hierarchical networks than
hierarchical, centralized status networks. flows upward, and the information that is
sent upward is often unrealistically
2. Groups develop a stable pattern of variations in positive.
attraction through sociometric differentiations.
4. As Moreno’s (1934) sociometric studies dem-
■ Sociometric structures display reciprocity, onstrated, SNA is useful in identifying unno-
transitivity, and homophily. ticed, latent aspects of the group’s structure.
SNA describes a group’s structure both visually
■ Paxton and Moody’s (2003) study indi- and quantitatively.
cated members bonded more closely to a
subgroup within the larger group were less ■ Individual-level (egocentric) indexes used
committed to their group as a whole. in SNA include degree centrality, indegree,
outdegree, betweenness, and closeness.
■ Heider’s balance theory assumes sociometric
structures tend to reach a state of equilib- ■ Group-level (sociocentric) indexes include
rium in which likes and dislikes are bal- size, density, cliques, and holes.
anced within the group.
■ Network analyses often reveal discrepan-
3. A group’s communication network may parallel cies between the group’s formal status
formally established paths, but most groups also network and its informal (actual) status
have an informal network that defines who network (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993).
speaks to whom most frequently.
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: The Andes Survivors account of the collective spirit of the rugby
team. Parrado, the author, was one of the
■ Alive by Piers Paul Read (1974) is the best- men who hiked down from the mountain
selling account of the young men who to bring back help.
crashed in the Andes and survived by cre-
ating a potent group. Norms
■ Miracle in the Andes by Nando Parrado ■ “Managing Normative Influences in
(2006), with Vince Rause, is a first-person Organizations” by Noah J. Goldstein and
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
STRUCTURE 191
■ Robert B. Cialdini (2011) reviews the group analysis with sections pertaining to
basic tenets of the focus theory of norma- leadership, organizational development,
Roles tive conduct and the intriguing empirical cross-cultural implications, and
studies that support it. methodology.
■
Social Norms, edited by Michael Hechter Intermember Relations
■ and Karl-Dieter Op (2001), is a collection
of solid theoretical and empirical reviews ■ “Network Analysis in the Social Sciences”
of the nature of norms and their influence by Stephen P. Borgatti, Ajay Mehra, Daniel
in groups. J. Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca (2009)
provides a concise, but comprehensive,
“Role Theory” by Bruce J. Biddle (2001) overview of the uses of social network
provides a concise summary of the history analysis in the social sciences, in general, and
of role theory in the social sciences, as well in the study of groups, in particular.
as a review of current applications and
trends. ■ “Social Network Analysis in the Science of
Groups: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal
Analysis of Social Interaction Systems, edited Applications for Studying Intra- and
by A. Paul Hare, Endre Sjøvold, Herbert Intergroup Behavior” by Ralf Wölfer,
G. Baker, and Joseph Powers (2005), Nadira S. Faber, and Miles Hewstone
includes 26 chapters dealing with a variety (2015) provides an overview of the use of
of aspects of the SYMLOG method of SNA methods with cross-sectional and
longitudinal data.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Influence
7C H A P T E R
CHAPTER OUTLINE CHAPTER OVERVIEW
7-1 Majority Influence: The Power of the Many An interpersonal undercurrent of social influence
7-1a Conformity and Independence flows beneath the surface of most groups, pushing
7-1b Conformity or Independence members together: toward greater consensus, uni-
7-1c Conformity across Contexts formity, and conformity. But other forces pull
7-1d Who Will Conform? members apart: promoting disagreement, unique-
ness, and independence. Groups require both con-
7-2 Minority Influence: The Power of the Few formity and dissent if they are to adapt to changing
7-2a Conversion Theory of Minority Influence circumstances. These processes are of particular
7-2b Predicting Minority Influence importance in groups that must make decisions
7-2c Dynamic Social Impact Theory about guilt and innocence: juries.
7-3 Sources of Group Influence ■ When do people conform in groups?
7-3a Implicit Influence ■ When do people resist the group’s influence
7-3b Informational Influence
7-3c Normative Influence and, instead, change the group?
7-3d Interpersonal Influence
7-3e When Influence Inhibits: The Bystander ■ What are the sources of social influence?
Effect ■ Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts?
7-4 Application: Understanding Juries
7-4a Jury Dynamics
7-4b How Effective Are Juries?
7-4c Improving Juries
Chapter Review
Resources
192
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 193
Twelve Angry Men: Social Influence in Juries
When the 12 members of the jury left the courtroom exclaiming, “You sat right in the court and heard the
that afternoon, most were thinking the same thing: He same things I did. The man’s a dangerous killer. You
is guilty. The prosecutor had presented the evidence could see it!” (Rose & Sergel, 1958, p. 14). Juror #7,
carefully—the unusual knife, the condition of the who wants to end the discussion quickly since he has
body, and the history of tension between the young plans for the evening, told #8 that it is hopeless to
man and his father—and besides: an eyewitness testi- resist: “I think the guy’s guilty. You couldn’t change
fied that she saw the son kill his own father. Once in my mind if you talked for a hundred years.” Juror #8
the jury room, the foreman took a straw vote, asking, answered back, “I want to talk for a while” (Rose &
“All those voting guilty, please raise your hand.” Four Sergel, 1958, p. 15).
jurors raise their hands immediately and, after a hesi-
tation, another seven joined in. Then all eyes turned to And talk they do. As Juror #8 explains the source
one member of the jury, Juror #8. He looked down at of his doubts, suggests alternative interpretations of
the table. “Eleven to one,” announced the foreman the evidence, and questions the accuracy of some of
(Rose & Sergel, 1958). the witnesses, the jurors became uncertain. They voted
again and again, and with each vote the numbers
The jurors, from that moment onward, began favoring guilt and innocence shifted: from 11 against
the task of bending Juror #8 to the will of the group. 1 to 10 against 2 to 9 against 3 until, in time, the tables
Juror #3 leaned across the table and muttered to #8, turned. Juror #3, who was so sure that the son was
“You are in left field.” Juror #4 urged Juror #8 to be guilty, finds that he is now the lone holdout. The
reasonable—it is far more likely that the 11 members group then pressured him to change, and grudgingly,
who agree on guilt are correct and that the lone indi- angrily, he admits he was wrong, and the shift of
vidual is wrong. Juror #3 tried to bully the holdout, opinion is complete. The jury’s verdict: not guilty.
When we are alone we can act as best suits our own Majority influence
desires and motivations, but when in groups we are Minority influence
interdependent: We must adjust our efforts, activi-
ties, and choices so that they fall into step with F I G U R E 7.1 Social influence results from the
those of the group. This integration of individuals majority’s impact on the minority (majority influence)
into a coordinated whole is made possible by social and the minority’s impact on the majority (minority
influence—interpersonal processes that change influence). Majority influence is indicated by straight
people’s thoughts, feelings, or actions. A jury mem- lines, as it tends to be direct. Minority influence is more
ber changing his vote, clique members mimicking indirect, and so is indicated by the curved dotted lines of
the mannerisms of the group’s leader, children influence from the lone minority back to the majority
endorsing the political views of their parents, and group members.
a Twitter user retweeting a popular tweet are influ-
enced by other people rather than by their own
individual ideation. People would not be social
beings if they were not influenced by others.
Much of this influence flows from the group to
the individual (see Figure 7.1). When the majority of
the group’s members champion a particular view,
they may pressure the few dissenting group members
social influence Interpersonal processes that change the
thoughts, feelings, or behaviors of another person.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
194 C H A P T E R 7
to adopt the majority’s view. In the jury described by preferences. They displayed conformity (Claidière
Reginald Rose in his play Twelve Angry Men, for & Whiten, 2012).
example, the 11 jurors who favored guilt sought to
persuade the one juror to change his vote (Rose & 7-1a Conformity and Independence
Sergel, 1955). However, social influence also flows
from the individual to the group. If the group is to When do people conform? Muzafer Sherif verified
meet new challenges and improve over time, it must that group members modify their judgments so that
recognize and accept ideas that conflict with the status they match those of others in their groups (1936; see
quo. In Twelve Angry Men, the lone minority held his chapter 6). Theodore Newcomb’s study of Benning-
ground, offered reasons for his views, and he pre- ton students showed that members of a group will
vailed. Whereas majority influence increases the gradually take as their own the group’s position on
consensus within the group, minority influence political and social issues (1943; see chapter 2). But it
sustains individuality and innovation. In this chapter, was social psychologist Solomon Asch who most
we consider the nature of this give-and-take between clearly demonstrated the power of the many to
majorities and minorities and the implications of this influence the few (Asch, 1952, 1955, 1956).
influence process for understanding how juries make
their decisions (Levine & Prislin, 2013; Levine & The Asch Situation The groups in the Asch situ-
Tindale, 2015). ation were given a simple task. Asch told the young
men who volunteered for his study that he wanted
7-1 MAJORITY INFLUENCE: them to look at some lines and decide which ones
were of the same lengths. Asch then showed them
THE POWER OF THE MANY two cards like those in Figure 7.2. One card showed
the “standard” line. The other displayed three lines of
Groups offer their members many advantages over varying length. The students then picked the one line
a solitary existence, but these advantages come at a from the second card that was of the same length as the
cost. The jurors sought to influence the other jur- standard line on the first card. This comparison process
ors, but all the while the jury was influencing them: was repeated 18 times, or 18 trials, and on each occa-
It swayed their judgments, favored one interpreta- sion, the students announced their answers aloud.
tion of reality over another, and encouraged certain
behaviors while discouraging others. When the The groups seemed ordinary enough, but looks
group first polled the members, several were uncer- can be deceiving. All but one of the students were
tain but they voted guilty to go along with others. Asch’s confederates, who deliberately answered incor-
They had to make a choice between alternatives, rectly on 12 of the 18 trials. The one real subject was
and they chose the alternative favored by the always seated in the seventh chair, so he could listen
majority of the others even though that choice did to six of the other group members’ judgments before
not coincide with their own personal preferences. he made his own. On rigged trials, the first confeder-
They gave more weight to social information—the ate would glance at the cards and confidently
majority’s opinion—than they gave to personal
conformity A change in one’s actions, emotions, opi-
majority influence Social pressure exerted by the larger nions, judgments, and so on that reduces their discrep-
portion of a group (the majority), directed toward indi- ancy with these same types of responses displayed by
vidual members and smaller factions within the group others.
(the minority). Asch situation An experimental procedure developed
minority influence Social pressure exerted by a lone by Solomon Asch in his studies of conformity to group
individual or smaller faction of a group (the minority), opinion. Participants believed they were making percep-
directed toward members of the majority. tual judgments as part of a group, but the other members
were trained to make deliberate errors on certain trials.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 195
123 for example, had doubts but went along with the
group. Juror #3, in contrast, voted guilty on the first
F I G U R E 7.2 An example of the problems given to straw vote but he was not conforming: He had decided
participants in the Asch study. Subjects were told to look at the defendant was guilty when he heard the eyewit-
the standard line (on the left) and then match it to one of ness’s testimony. These jurors agreed with the major-
the three lines on the right. The task was an easy one, but ity, but each one illustrates a specific type of conformity
all of the group members, save the one true subject, were (Nail, Di Domenico, & MacDonald, 2013).
Asch’s confederates who deliberately made many mistakes.
■ Compliance (or acquiescence): When compli-
SOURCE: Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: ance occurs, members privately disagree with
I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Mono- the group but they publicly express an opin-
graphs: General and Applied, 70, No. 9. Whole No. 416. ion that matches the opinion expressed by the
majority of the group.
announce the wrong answer. The next confederate
would nod his head in agreement and say the same ■ Conversion (or private acceptance): Members
incorrect answer. After six wrong answers, it was the change their position on the issue because they
subject’s turn. He faced a choice: agree with everyone think the group is correct; they personally
else’s judgments or give the answer that he personally accept the group’s position as their own.
thought was correct.
■ Congruence (or uniformity): Members agree with
When the students worked alone, they rarely the group from the outset, so they are not
made an error. But in the group with the erroneous responding to the group’s influence when they
confederates, about one-third of the subjects con- express their position publicly. They do not need
formed by also giving that answer. As Figure 7.3 indi- to shift their opinion in the direction advocated by
cates, three out of every four subjects made at least one the group because it was already their position.
error during the experiment. Some conformed even
more than that—about 5% conformed every time the Types of Nonconformity Nonconformity—
majority made a mistake—but the average conformity disagreeing with others in the group—also takes
rate across the sessions was 36.8%. Asch’s summary: several forms. Juror #8, for example, was no con-
“The majority deflected considerably the estimates of formist; he refused to vote guilty because he wished
the minority in its direction. Whereas the judgments to challenge the group’s decision to skip the delib-
were virtually free of error under control conditions, eration process. He was unsure of the defendant’s
one-third of the minority estimates were distorted innocence, but he disagreed in order to challenge
toward the majority” (Asch, 1956, p. 69). the group’s norms (Packer, 2008b). But, Juror #8
was also something of an individualist, the kind of
Types of Conformity On the first straw vote in person who often did things to differentiate himself
the Twelve Angry Men jury, most of the jurors voted from what others were doing. Nonconformity, like
guilty, but they did so for different reasons. Juror #9, conformity, comes in several flavors.
■ Independence (dissent): Members disagree by
publicly expressing ideas, beliefs, and judg-
ments that are consistent with their personal
standards.
compliance (acquiescence) Change that occurs when
the targets of social influence publicly accept the influ-
encer’s position but privately maintain their original
beliefs.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
196 C H A P T E R 7
How many members made 76%
at least one error?
How many times did the 37%
member conform, on average?
How many group members 24%
never conformed?
How many group members 28%
conformed 8 times or more?
How many individuals made at 5%
least one error when tested alone?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
F I G U R E 7.3 Results of Asch’s study of conformity.
SOURCE: Data from Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 70, No. 9. Whole No. 416.
■ Anticonformity (counterconformity): Members victims of an optical illusion; nevertheless, these suspi-
who display anticonformity express ideas or cions failed to free them at the moment of decision”
take actions that are the opposite of whatever (Asch, 1955, p. 33). Had Asch’s groups been making
the group favors. important decisions—deliberating over a verdict in a
murder trial, forging a plan to deal with an emer-
■ Strategic anticonformity (devil’s advocate): Mem- gency, or crafting a solution to a difficult problem—
bers take a position that opposes that endorsed then the participants would have let the group make a
by the majority of the members publically, even mistake at least one out of every three times.
though privately they agree with the majority.
Nearly all of the subjects, however, disagreed
7-1b Conformity or Independence with the majority more frequently than they agreed.
People often conformed, but the average participant
Most of Asch’s subjects displayed one of two forms of disagreed 9 out of 12 times. Asch’s study is often used
social response to the group pressure: compliance or to suggest that people are, by nature, conformists who
independence. Some questioned their own discern- tend to go along unthinkingly with whatever the
ment and ended up believing that the others were majority favors. The data, however, suggest other-
right. But most thought the majority was wrong: wise. Participants did not comply on all the trials;
They “suspected that the majority were ‘sheep’ fol- instead, their more frequent social response was to
lowing the first responder, or that the majority were remain independent. They spoke their minds even
when confronted with a unanimous majority and
anticonformity (or counterconformity) Deliberately agreed with the others only occasionally—when
expressing opinions, making judgments, or acting in their error was a slight one or by choosing an answer
ways that are different from those of the other group that was intermediate between the correct answer and
members or the group’s norms in order to challenge the majority’s mistaken one (Hodges & Geyer, 2006).
the group and its standards rather than simply for the People sometimes forget that the predominant
purpose of expressing one’s personal preferences. response in the Asch study was nonconformity rather
than conformity.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 197
Would You like Pepperoni on That?
People’s responses to others’ influence take many 2. You don’t really care about pepperoni,
forms. Compare them by imagining you and a group but you like being a rebel, so you argue
of your friends are ordering a pizza, and the majority for a vegetarian white pizza.
of the members quickly state, in unison, “We must
have pepperoni on our pizza.” Will you agree with 3. You dislike pepperoni, but go along with
them or will you resist? Your response can be called the group. After dinner, you say that the
many names, depending on your public statements on pepperoni was good, but privately you
the pepperoni issue and your private opinions before still dislike pepperoni.
and after the deliberation.
4. You like pepperoni, but you think the
Instructions. For each example, write in the letter group should consider alternatives. So,
of the matching type of social responses where: you deliberately argue for other top-
pings. But you are fine when the group
a. compliance gets a pepperoni pizza.
b. conversion 5. You dislike pepperoni, but don’t say any-
thing when the group orders. The pizza is
c. independence great, and you change your mind about
pepperoni. Next time you order a pizza,
d. anticonformity you add pepperoni.
e. strategic anticonformity 6. You like pepperoni so you speak up in
favor of getting pepperoni when the
f. congruence group discusses its order.
1. You dislike pepperoni and try to talk to Solutions: 1(c), 2(d), 3(a), 4(e), 5(b), 6(f)
the group about putting pepperoni on
only half. They refuse. You pick the pep-
peroni off your slices while frowning.
7-1c Conformity across Contexts publically announced his answer before the subject
responded. As predicted, when participants had an
Asch studied conformity in newly formed groups ally, conformity rates were cut to one-fourth of
working on a very easy task that was not particu- their previous levels. In yet another variation,
larly consequential. The members did not know Asch arranged for some confederates to disagree
each other well; they sat together in a well-lit with the majority but still give an incorrect answer.
room; they usually announced their decisions Participants did not agree with the erroneous non-
aloud. Did these details matter? Once Asch con- conformist, but his dissent made it easier for them
firmed the ubiquity of conformity, he and other to express their own viewpoint (Asch, 1955, 1956).
researchers systematically searched for factors that
influence conformity and independence. Why is a unanimous majority so influential? First,
individuals who face the majority alone, without a sin-
Unanimity Juror #8 in Twelve Angry Men faced 11 gle ally, bear 100% of the group’s pressure. Psychologi-
other men who disagreed with him. Each participant cally, being completely alone is very different from
in Asch’s study faced a similar situation, for he was having another person join with you against the others
the only one in the group who favored the correct (Allen, 1975). Gaining a partner, however, helps one
line. Did some of the force of the Asch situation withstand the pressure to conform only as long as the
derive from the unanimity of the majority? partner remains supportive. Asch discovered that if the
partner reverts back to the majority position, then sub-
Asch examined this possibility by replicating his jects do as well. Second, the larger the size of the minor-
study, but this time he provided each subject with ity, the smaller the majority; each time a member of the
an ally; either another subject or a confederate who
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
198 C H A P T E R 7
majority shifts to the minority, the minority grows being evaluated. Asch’s procedure was also ineffi-
stronger and the majority weaker (Clark, 1990). cient, for many confederates were required to study
Third, a partner makes a very embarrassing situation just one participant. Psychologist Richard Crutch-
less so. The kinds of judgments that Asch studied field (1955) solved this latter problem by eliminat-
were simple ones; “the correct judgment appeared so ing the confederates. In Crutchfield’s laboratory,
obvious that only perceptual incompetents, fools, or the participants made their judgments while seated
madmen could err” (Ross, Bierbrauer, & Hoffman, in individual cubicles. They flipped a switch on a
1976, p. 149). A partner—and particularly one who is response panel to report their judgments to the
the first to dissent—takes much of the risk for going researcher, and their answers would supposedly
against the group (Sabini, Garvey, & Hall, 2001). light up on the other group members’ panels as
well. Crutchfield told each person in the group
Strong and Weak Situations Asch studied con- that he or she was to answer last, and he himself
formity in a social situation that was simple, but also simulated the majority’s judgments from a master
strong. Weak situations do not pressure people to control box. Thus, during the critical trials, Crutch-
act as everyone else does, and so their actions in field could lead participants to think that all the
such settings tend to be shaped more by their per- other participants were giving erroneous answers.
sonal proclivities rather than by social constraints.
Strong situations, in contrast, leave very little The Crutchfield situation sacrificed face-to-face
opportunity for people to act in unusual or idiosyn- interaction between the participant and the confeder-
cratic ways (Mischel, 1977). ates, but was efficient: Crutchfield could study five or
more people in a single session, and he did not need
People conform more in strong situations that to recruit confederates. Because group members’
undercut their capacity to resist the group (see responses were private, however, fewer people con-
Table 7.1). We are, for example, more likely to formed in the Crutchfield situation relative to the
conform when the majority seems well-informed, Asch situation (Bond & Smith, 1996). The procedure
the group is highly cohesive, and members are try- was also very unusual—at least at that time. Nowa-
ing to make a good impression. Others situations, in days it is far more usual for group members to interact
contrast, encourage individuality and dissent. We at a distance: Online groups are, in a sense, the mod-
can more easily resist pressures to conform when ern form of the Crutchfield situation.
our identity is not known to others or the problem
is one that is so complex that the correct answer is Strength in Numbers (Up to a Point) How
difficult to determine (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; many people does it take to create maximum confor-
Cialdini & Trost, 1998). mity? Is two against one enough? Are smaller groups
less influential? Is 11 to 1 too many, since individuals
Consider, for example, the difference between feel so anonymous in large groups, they can resist
the Asch situation and the so-called Crutchfield group forces? Asch explored these questions by study-
situation. Participants in Asch’s studies stated ing groups with 2–16 members. His findings, summa-
their choices aloud under the watchful eyes of all rized in Figure 7.4, confirm that larger majorities are
the other members, and this procedure likely more influential—but only up to a point. People in
increased their feelings of embarrassment and of two-person groups conformed very little; most were
unsettled by the erroneous choices of their partner,
Crutchfield situation An experimental procedure but they did not go along with him or her (3.6%
developed by Richard Crutchfield to study conformity. error rate). But the error rate climbed to 13.6%
Participants who signaled their responses using an elec- when participants faced two opponents, and when a
tronic response console believed they were making judg- single individual was pitted against three others, con-
ments as part of a group, but the responses of the other formity jumped to 31.8%. Asch studied even larger
members that appeared on their console’s display were groups, but he found that with more than three
simulated.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 199
T A B L E 7.1 A Sampling of Group and Situational Characteristics That Reliably Increase
and Decrease Conformity
Factor Conformity Is More Likely If Conformity Is Less Likely If
Accountability (Quinn & Individuals are striving for acceptance Individuals are accountable for their
Schlenker, 2002) by others whose preferences are actions and are striving for accuracy
known
Accuracy (Mausner, 1954) Majority’s position is reasonable or Majority’s position is unreasonable or
accurate mistaken
Ambiguity (Spencer & Issues are simple and unambiguous Issues are complex and difficult to
Huston, 1993) evaluate
Anonymity (Tsikerdekis, Respondents’ identities are known to Respondents are anonymous
2013) others
Attraction (Kiesler & Members are attracted to the group or Members dislike each other
Corbin, 1965) its members
Awareness (Krueger & Individuals are aware they disagree Individuals do not realize their position
Clement, 1997) with the majority is unusual
Cohesion (Lott & Lott, 1961) Group is close-knit and cohesive Group lacks cohesion
Commitment to membership Individuals are committed to remaining Groups or membership are temporary
(Kiesler, Zanna, & Desalvo, in the group
1966)
Distance (Gardete, 2015) Airline passengers are seated side by Airline passengers are seated in different
side rows
Forewarning and depletion Individuals are ego-depleted Individuals are forewarned about a
(Janssen, Fennis, & Pruyn, future social influence attempt
2010)
Priming (Epley & Gilovich, Unnoticed cues in the setting prime Situational cues prime independence
1999) conformity
Public commitment to Individuals did not initially conform but Individuals did not initially conform and
position (Gerard, 1964)
their responses are private their responses are public
Situational motivators Nonconformists could be revealed as Individuals are motivated to stand out
(Griskevicius et al., 2006) incorrect from the crowd
Size (Asch, 1955) Majority is large Majority is small
Task (Baron, Vandello, & Task is important but very difficult Task is important and easy, or task is
Brunsman, 1996) trivial
Unanimity (Asch, 1955) Majority is unanimous Several members disagree with the
majority
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
200 C H A P T E R 7
Why Do People Conform Even in Online Groups?
When people began to use the Internet to interact Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects—or
with each other, many wondered how users would act SIDE for short—explains why. SIDE suggests that in the
once they were free to express themselves without relatively anonymous online world, individuals tend to
fear of social embarrassment, reprisal, or recrimina- define themselves in terms of their collective, social
tion. Would not online interactions trigger identities rather than their individualistic, personal
disinhibition—the reduction in self-regulation—with identities. Online interactions are depersonalized ones:
the result that emotions, thoughts, and opinions that individual motivations, qualities, and beliefs are less
would normally be kept private would be expressed salient so the social component of the self comes to
publicly (Joinson, 2007)? Interactions on the Internet, it the fore. Some people, faced with increased deper-
was feared, might be rife with hostility, conflict, inap- sonalization, may strive to reassert their individuality
propriate self-disclosures, and wanton disregard of by acting in unusual, distinctive ways, but if their
social conventions. group identity is salient, they will more likely conform
to the group’s norms (Spears & Postmes, 2015).
The Internet includes its share of nonconformists:
angry users who TYPE IN ALL CAPS, “trolls” who post Because of these “SIDE effects,” when individuals
hostile comments in discussion areas, vandals who receive electronic messages from other individuals—
deface Wikipedia pages, and websites that vilify indi- even people they do not know and will not communi-
viduals and social groups. But research suggests that cate with in the future—they frequently change their
people conform as much when online as when offline decisions to match the recommendations of these
(Bargh & McKenna, 2004). Through discussion, con- anonymous strangers (Lee & Nass, 2002). When small
sensus emerges within the group, and members move groups of students use email in classes, each group
in the direction of agreement rather than continually develops idiosyncratic norms that regulate the group’s
debating issues. Online groups develop norms that interactions, and conformity to these norms increases
structure interactions and status, and new members through the semester (Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000).
are socialized to follow these rules. Members some- People comply with norms of reciprocity and coopera-
times act in ways that violate the group’s norms of tion in online groups even when completely anony-
etiquette (“netiquette”) by expressing hostility and mous, provided they identify with the group (Cress,
exchanging insults, but such deviations are usually 2005). These findings suggest that social pressures may
sanctioned, and offenders who do not conform are be relaxed to some extent in online groups, but they
eventually ostracized (Moor, Heuvelman, & Verleur, are not erased. The social forces that guide group
2010). members in their face-to-face meetings influence them
even when they are connected by computers rather
Conformity may actually be more prevalent in than conference room tables.
online groups rather than offline groups, and the
opponents, conformity increased only slightly (reach- keep their opinions to themselves, people are more
ing its peak of 37.1% in the seven-person groups); likely to dissent. A large group can also lose some of
even 16 against 1 did not raise conformity appreciably its influence when its members do not reach their
above the level achieved with three against one (Asch, decisions independently of one another. If indivi-
1952, 1955). duals learn that a six-person group disagrees with
them but they believe that the group members
Social psychologist Rod Bond (2005), in a worked together as a group to make their decision,
meta-analytic review of conformity in the Asch sit- then the size of the group matters less. But when
uation, confirmed the pattern shown in Figure 7.4, individuals believe that the other group members
but also noted that the precise shape of the relation- reached their conclusions independently of one
ship between size and influence depends on a num- another, then their influence increases as the num-
ber of factors. When, for example, individuals in ber of sources increases. For example, 2 two-person
larger groups state their opinions publicly, the find- groups are more influential than 1 four-person
ings tend to match the Asch pattern. But when they
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 201
Conformity Conformity
low
with 1
source
Adding more sources does not appreciably
increase conformity
Increased conformity with 2 or 3 sources
0 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 15
Number of sources of influence
F I G U R E 7.4 The relationship between conformity and group size. Studies conducted in a number of settings
suggest that few people conform when they face just one other person who disagrees with them, but that conformity
rises rapidly when a lone individual faces a group of two or three. Adding more people to the majority beyond three
does not appreciably increase conformity.
group whose members worked together (Wilder, want more light, you can always turn on more
1977; see also Jackson, 1987; Wolf, 1987). lamps. Eventually, however, the room will become
so bright that turning on more lights will not make
Social Impact Social psychologist Bibb Latané’s much difference.
(1981) social impact theory provides a general
framework for organizing what researchers have Analogously, social impact is contingent on the
learned about conformity pressures in groups. relative strength of the other group members. Like a
Drawing on studies of psychophysics, Latané sug- 25-watt bulb surrounded by 100-watt bulbs, a person
gests that the magnitude of social influence pres- with relatively little status in the group will likely
sures depends on the number of sources, their choose to conform (Jetten, Hornsey, & Adarves-
strength, and their psychological immediacy. Con- Yorno, 2006). Immediacy also matters, for people
sider, for example, what happens when a single who are physically nearby will have more of an
lightbulb is lit in an otherwise dark room. The impact than people who are seated far away or are
room is illuminated, but how brightly? It depends absent (Gardete, 2015). In the Twelve Angry Men
on the strength of the lightbulb—a 25-watt bulb jury, for example, the first juror to change to agree
gives just enough light to see by, whereas a flood- with juror #8 was juror #9. Sheer numbers are also
light might reach every corner. And where is the critical. As with lightbulbs, the more people, the more
lamp located? A lamp in the corner may leave the impact they will have on you—up to a point. Just as
opposite corner of the room in shadows, but if you the first light turned on in a dark room has more of an
impact than the hundredth, the first person who
social impact theory An analysis of social influence, expresses a different opinion has more impact than
which proposes that the impact of any source of influence the hundredth person, or expressed more formally:
depends upon the strength, the immediacy, and the num- “there is a marginally decreasing effect of increased
ber of people (sources) present (developed by Bibb Latané). supplies of people” (Latané, 1981, p. 344). In sum,
social impact is a function of the strength (S ), the
immediacy (I ), and the number (N ) of sources present,
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
202 C H A P T E R 7
or Social Impact ¼ fSIN (Latané, 1981, 1996, 1997; wavering from their convictions as they disagreed
Latané & Bourgeois, 2001; Latané & Wolf, 1981; time and time again with the others. As one partic-
MacCoun, 2012). ipant remarked, “The answers of the others didn’t
change my mind—an honest answer was expected.
Latané’s principle of social impact explains peo- I did not change my answer once.” When asked
ple’s reactions across a range of influence settings, about the others in the group, he simply said
including Asch’s conformity studies, reactions to “They were wrong” (Asch, 1952, p. 467).
emergencies, attitude change among dormitory
residents, the formation of spontaneous crowds on Table 7.2 summarizes some of the differences
street corners, donations to charities, and even a between those who yield and those who remain
society’s cultural practices (Harton & Bullock, resolute in the face of social pressure. Conformists
2007; Latané, 1997). One study, for example, tend to be more rigid in their thinking; their con-
asked college students to imagine themselves sing- ventionality, conservative values, and unwillingness
ing the “Star Spangled Banner” alone or with to confront authority increase their willingness to
others in front of audiences of one, three, or nine accept the majority’s opinion. They let the situation
listeners who were either music experts or students and other people influence their perceptions, opi-
who were partially tone deaf. As the theory sug- nions, and outlooks. People who rely on situational
gests, performers were more nervous when the cues when making perceptual judgments, self-
audience was high rather than low in strength conscious individuals, and those who are continu-
(experts versus students) and nervousness increased ally checking to see how well they are fitting into
at a decreasing rate as the audience grew larger. the group or situation (high self-monitors), are
Performers also felt less anxiety when they imag- more likely to make certain that their actions
ined themselves performing, or actually performed, match the group’s standards. People who conform
in front of audiences when they themselves were show a greater interest, overall, in other people.
part of a group. Size, however, still mattered. Peo- They have a higher need for social approval, are
ple’s anxiety declined when their groups increased more interpersonally oriented, and are more fearful
from two, to three, to four, but once they reached of social rejection. Factors that undermine self-
four members, adding members did not appreciably confidence—low self-esteem, incompetence, low
reduce anxiety (Jackson & Latané, 1981). intelligence—also increase conformity (for a
review, see Nezlak & Smith, 2016).
7-1d Who Will Conform?
Conformity across the Sexes Did Asch underes-
Asch studied men (mostly). All lived in the United timate the urge to conform by studying mostly
States. They were college students. They lived at a men? Is it not true that women are more likely to
time when their culture was politically conserva- be swayed by others’ opinions, whereas men are
tive. Would Asch’s findings hold with other kinds independent and steadfast? When this possibility
of people, from other cultures, and in other groups was first tested by researchers, they often discovered
facing different issues? that the sexes did differ—that women were more
likely to conform than men. However, these studies
Conformity across People Asch discovered that often used tasks that men were more familiar with,
people differed, to an extraordinary degree, in their and they were also conducted by men rather than
reaction to the conformity situation. Those who women researchers. Once gender-neutral topics
conformed often became increasingly disoriented were introduced and more women began studying
as the study progressed, hesitating before they dis- the issue, differences between men and women
agreed and apologizing to the others for their faded (for a review, see Carli, 2015).
temerity. Others, in contrast, remained confident
and self-assured throughout the experiment, never If the sexes do differ, it tends to be in groups
that meet face-to-face and when responses are
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 203
T A B L E 7.2 A Sampling of Personality Characteristics That Are Reliably Associated with
Conformity and Nonconformity
Characteristic Reaction to Influence
Age
Conformity increases until adolescence and then decreases into adulthood (Costanzo &
Shaw, 1966).
Authenticity Individuals who are higher in dispositional authenticity tend to resist external influences
(Wood et al., 2008).
Authoritarianism Authoritarians respect and obey authorities and social conventions (Altemeyer, 1988;
Feldman, 2003).
Birth order Firstborn children tend to conform more than children born later, who tend to be more
rebellious and creative (Sulloway, 1996).
Dependency People who are high in dependency (a strong motivation to please other people) display
heightened compliance, conformity, and suggestibility (Bornstein, 1992).
Gender identity Masculine individuals and androgynous individuals conform less on gender-neutral tasks
than feminine individuals (Bem, 1982).
Individualism– People from collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asians) value conformity as a means of achieving
collectivism harmony with others, whereas those from individualistic cultures (e.g., European Ameri-
cans) value uniqueness (Kim & Markus, 1999).
Individuation People with a high desire to publicly differentiate themselves from others (high indivi-
duators) are more willing to express dissenting opinions and contribute more to group
discussions (Whitney, Sagrestano, & Maslach, 1994).
Intelligence Less intelligent people and individuals who are uncertain of their abilities conform more
(Crutchfield, 1955).
Need for closure Conformity pressures are stronger in groups with a preponderance of members with a
high need for closure (De Grada et al., 1999).
Need for uniqueness Individuals with a high need for uniqueness are more likely to make unusual choices and
resist majority influence (Imhoff & Erb, 2009).
Personality traits Introverts experience more discomfort when disagreeing with a group and so conform
more (Matz, Hofstedt, & Wood, 2008). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and stability are
associated with greater conformity (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002), but openness
with less conformity (McCrae, 1996).
Self-blame Adolescents who tend to blame themselves for negative outcomes conform more than
individuals low in self-blame (Costanzo, 1970).
Self-esteem Individuals with low self-esteem conform more than individuals with moderate and high
self-esteem (Berkowitz & Lundy, 1957); however, adolescents with high self-esteem con-
form more than those with low self-esteem (Francis, 1998).
Self-monitoring High self-monitors, because of their self-presentational tendencies, conform more when
striving to make a positive impression (Chen, Shechter, & Chaiken, 1996).
Yea-saying Yea-sayers, particularly when working under a cognitive load, say “yes” faster and more
frequently than individuals who thoughtfully consider their position (Knowles & Condon,
1999).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
204 C H A P T E R 7
Why Twelve Angry Men?
When Rose wrote Twelve Angry Men very few Ameri- juries. In 1920, women were given the right to vote in
can juries included women (Rose & Sergel, 1958). At elections, but not the right to serve on juries. In 1957,
one time, jurists argued that women could not hold women were finally permitted to serve on federal
fast to their private views or influence others, and that juries, but many state courts still excluded them. In
their presence in the jury room would distract the 1975, the Supreme Court finally ruled that women
men. When the U.S. Supreme Court considered this could not be barred (or excused) from jury duty
issue in 1879, that group (of men) favored all-male because of their sex.
made publicly rather than in private. In such a researchers have replicated his basic procedure in
situation, women may use agreement to create dozens of countries, including the United States,
consensus and cohesion in their groups. Men, in Britain, Belgium, Fiji, Holland, Kuwait, Portugal,
contrast, may disagree with others to gain status or and Zimbabwe. When Rod Bond and cross-
distance themselves from the group. When men cultural psychologist Peter Smith (Bond & Smith,
and women were primed to respond relationally, 1996) surveyed these studies, they concluded that
only the men later demonstrated their uniqueness Asch may have underestimated conformity by
by not conforming to others’ choices about per- studying people living in a relatively individualistic
sonal tastes and preferences (Griskevicius et al., culture. As noted in Chapter 3, Western societies
2006). tend to place the individual above the collective.
Collectivistic societies, which are more prevalent
These differences may also reflect continuing in Asia, Africa, and South America, stress shared
biases in the allocation of status to women. Despite goals and interdependence. As a result, people
changes in stereotypes about women and men, groups tend to conform more in collectivistic cultures,
traditionally reward men for acting in dominant, non- especially when the source of influence is family
conforming ways and women for acting in coopera- members or friends (Frager, 1970).
tive, communal ways. If women feel that they should
behave in a traditional way, they may conform more Bond and Smith also checked for changes in con-
than men (Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981). formity from 1952 to 1994 to determine if confor-
Women who do not conform to traditional sex mity rates fluctuated as society’s tolerance of dissent
roles do not conform more than men (Bem, 1985). waxed and waned. When Asch carried out his work
Sexism in groups and in society at large may also in the 1950s, social norms stressed respect for author-
prevent women from expressing their dissent in ity and traditional values, whereas the late 1960s were
groups. The studies of status allocation reviewed in marked by student activism and social disobedience.
Chapter 8, for example, indicate that groups only This period of rebelliousness was followed by a pro-
grudgingly allocate status to qualified women. This longed period of social stability. Do entire generations
sexist bias against women undermines their resistance of people become more or less conforming, depend-
to influence and weakens their power to influence ing on the sociopolitical climate of the times in which
others (Eagly, 1987). As women have become more they live? Bond and Smith discovered that conformity
successful in work and educational settings, their social rates have dropped since the 1950s, but they found no
status has risen, along with their independence and support for the idea that conformity is a “child of its
assertiveness (Twenge, 2001). time.” Conformity is decreasing, but this decline was
not sharper in the 1960s or more gradual in the rela-
Conformity across Cultures and Eras In the tively placid 1970s and 1980s (Larsen, 1982; Perrin &
years since Asch first published his findings, other Spencer, 1980, 1981).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 205
7-2 MINORITY INFLUENCE: Group
THE POWER OF THE FEW discussion
Sometimes the few influence the many. Juror #8 Minority Majority
refused to change his verdict and eventually the influence influence
other 11 members of the Twelve Angry Men yielded
to him. Despite pressure from religious authorities, Validation Comparison
Galileo insisted that the planets revolve around the
Sun rather than the Earth. Many in the U.S. civil Conversion Compliance
rights movement of the 1960s favored using violence,
if necessary, to overcome discrimination and racism, • indirect • direct
but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. insisted on nonviolent • delayed • immediate
methods. Sigmund Freud actively rebuked critics of • durable • temporary
his theory of the unconscious mind until it was grudg-
ingly accepted by many psychologists. The composer F I G U R E 7.5 Moscovici’s conversion theory of
Igor Stravinsky was denounced as a musical heretic minority and majority influence.
when The Rite of Spring was first performed, but he
refused to change a note. The majority can bring results in conflict and that the group members—
powerful and potentially overwhelming pressure to motivated to reduce that conflict—change others
bear upon the minority, but minorities can fight and also change themselves (Moscovici, 1976, 1980,
back with pressure of their own. 1985, 1994).
7-2a Conversion Theory of Comparison or Validation? Conversion theory
proposes that minorities influence in a different
Minority Influence way than majorities do. Minorities, Moscovici the-
orized, influence through the validation process (see
Just as Asch’s studies highlighted the power of Figure 7.5). When someone in the group breaks the
the majority, so the work of Serge Moscovici group’s unanimity—such as Juror #8 arguing “not
and his colleagues underscored the power of guilty”—members take notice of this surprising
the minority. Moscovici, in an insightful analysis turn of events. The minority captures their atten-
of conformity in science itself, suggested that for tion, and though most do not believe that the
too long theorists and researchers assumed that minority is correct, they nonetheless consider the
change comes from within existing social sys- arguments closely. The majority’s message, in con-
tems rather than revolutionary sources; that the trast, is less intriguing to members. When people
victory of the majority is more democratic than discover where most of the group stands on a posi-
the victory of the minority; and that innovation tion, through a comparison process, they check to see if
occurs as a result of direct rather than indirect they can join the majority. Because being in the
interaction between the majority and minority. majority is, in most cases, more rewarding than
In contrast to this majority-rules model of membership in the minority—those in the majority
social influence, Moscovici’s conversion theory usually find that they control the group’s resources,
maintains that disagreement within the group whereas those in the minority may have little say in
conversion theory A conceptual analysis of the cogni-
tive and interpersonal processes that mediate the direct
and indirect impact of a consistent minority on the
majority (developed by Serge Moscovici).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
206 C H A P T E R 7
the group’s decisions—people usually change to in his studies of majority influence, but a significant
comply with the group’s consensus. This compliance amount considering the obviousness of the correct
reflects a desire to be included within the group, answer. Moscovici also found evidence of the
however, rather than any kind of in-depth review delayed effects of the minority on the majority.
of the majority’s reasons for their position. In conse- After the public judgment task, a second experi-
quence, the change is relatively superficial and may menter entered the room and explained that he
evaporate once the individual leaves the group. was also doing a study of vision. Participants were
then shown another set of colors that included three
Moscovici maintained that the validation pro- blue slides, three green slides, and ten slides in the
cesses instigated by a minority are longer-lasting blue-green range, and they privately labeled each
than those triggered by the comparison processes one either blue or green. Those who had been pre-
of majority influence. Comparison results in direct viously exposed to a minority-group opinion were
influence as members publicly comply. Validation, more likely to label the ambiguous slides as green
in contrast, leads to private acceptance, making rather than blue, and this bias was more marked
minorities a source of innovation in groups. They among those members who did not change their
shake the confidence of the majority and force the public choices when they first encountered the
group to seek out new information about the situ- minority. This delayed, indirect impact of minorities
ation. This conversion process takes longer, how- on the majority has been documented in a wide
ever, than the compliance process, and so the effects variety of laboratory and field studies, which indicate
of a minority on the majority sometimes do not that “minorities tend to produce profound and last-
emerge until some time has passed. In some cases, ing changes in attitudes and perceptions that gener-
the influence of minorities becomes evident only alize to new settings and over time … whereas
when the group has completed its initial delibera- majorities are more likely to elicit compliance that
tions and moved on to another task (see also is confined to the original influence setting” (Maass,
Nemeth & Goncalo, 2011). West, & Cialdini, 1987, pp. 56–57).
Delayed Social Influence Moscovici and his col- 7-2b Predicting Minority Influence
leagues, in one of the first tests of the theory,
reversed the usual Asch situation by inserting two Moscovici’s conversion theory began as a minority
confederates in six-person groups and then arrang- opinion that many researchers rejected, but it even-
ing for the confederates to systematically disagree tually won over even the most stubborn members of
with the majority’s decision. Instead of judging the opposition—confirming the theory’s own pre-
lines, Moscovici’s subjects judged, aloud, the dictions. The question changed, over time, from
color and brightness of a series of blue slides, vary- “Are minorities influential?” to “When are minori-
ing only in luminosity. But when it was their turn ties influential?” Answers to that question, which are
to name the color of the slides, the confederates reviewed briefly in the next sections, suggest that
consistently said “green” rather than “blue.” In given enough time, minorities who argue consis-
some cases, the confederates answered first and tently for their positions but all the while manage
second, but in other groups, one answered first to remain members in good-standing in the group
and the other answered fourth (Moscovici, Lage, will shift the group’s consensus away from the
& Naffrechoux, 1969). majority’s position toward the one they favor (see
Butera et al., 2016; Gardikiotis, 2011; Hornsey &
Moscovici and his colleagues confirmed the Jetten, 2014 for reviews).
power of the minority. When tested alone, only
one person of the 22 tested said two of the slides Consistency and Influence In Twelve Angry Men,
were green. But when in the presence of the Juror #8 always voted in favor of “not guilty.”
green-saying confederates, this error rate jumped to
8.4%—not as much influence as that found by Asch
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 207
He did not waver as the majority pressured him to Social psychologist Edwin Hollander (1971)
change his vote. He did not always have compelling developed the concept of idiosyncrasy credits
arguments to back up his position, but he was to explain the group’s positive reaction to a minority
always consistent in the defense of his view. He who prefaces dissent with conformity. According to
was one inspiring juror (Ellsworth, 2003). Hollander, idiosyncrasy credits accumulate as the
member contributes to the progress of the group
A consistent minority is an influential one. toward desired goals. Because high-status members
Moscovici verified the importance of maintaining con- have usually contributed more in the past and possess
sistency in his original blue-green study by also includ- more valued personal characteristics, they have more
ing a condition in which the confederates labeled the idiosyncrasy credits. Therefore, if they do not con-
blue slides green on two-thirds of the trials instead of all form, their actions are more tolerable to the other
of the trials. The error rate dropped down to 1.25%— members. The low-status members’ balance of cred-
hardly any influence at all (Moscovici et al., 1969; its is, in comparison, low, so they are permitted a
Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980). smaller latitude for nonconformity. The idiosyncrasy
model suggests that influence levels in a group are
Subsequent studies have confirmed the impor- increased by careful conformity to group norms dur-
tance of behavioral consistency on the part of the ing the early phases of group formation, followed by
minority, but they also suggest that minorities must dissent when a sufficient balance of idiosyncrasy
walk the line between appearing self-assured and credit has been established (Hollander, 2014).
unreasonable. In general, minorities are more influen-
tial when they are perceived to be team players who Hollander’s advice about early conformity con-
are committed, competent, and group-centered trasts to some extent with Moscovici’s recommenda-
(Levine & Russo, 1987). An influential minority also tions concerning consistent nonconformity. Hollander
avoids threatening the integrity of the group itself. warned that dissenters who challenge the majority
Many groups will tolerate debate and disagreement, without first earning high status in the group will prob-
but if the dissent creates deep divisions in the group, ably be overruled by the majority, but Moscovici
the majority may take steps to quash the minority or argued that consistent nonconformity will lead to
exclude its members from the group. If a group is just innovation and change. Both tactics, however, may
a loose conglomeration of individuals with no clear prove effective. Researchers compared the two in
sense of identity, then the members of this “group” group discussions of three issues. One minority built
do not feel threatened by disagreement. But if the up idiosyncrasy credits by agreeing on the first two
group members identify strongly with their group issues that the group discussed but then disagreeing
and they feel that the dissenter is undermining its col- on the third. The second minority built up consistency
lective identity, they are more likely to feel a sense of by disagreeing with the group on all three issues. Both
loss when members begin to take a minority’s argu- minorities were influential, but the minority who built
ments seriously (Prislin, Brewer, & Wilson, 2002). In up idiosyncrasy credits was more influential in all-male
such cases, an individual who is not even a member of groups (Bray, Johnson, & Chilstrom, 1982; see also
the group may be more influential than an ingroup Youngreen & Byron, 2016).
member (Phillips, 2003).
Idiosyncrasy Credits In Twelve Angry Men, idiosyncrasy credit An explanation for the leniency
Juror #8 was influential, but so was Juror #11. groups sometimes display toward high-status members
That juror voted guilty on the first ballot, as did who violate group norms; the hypothetical interpersonal
the other ten jurors. But, when Juror #8 noted credit or bonus that is earned each time an individual
several conflicting aspects of the evidence, Juror makes a contribution to the group but the credit
#11 changed his mind and shifted his vote. Did decreases each time the individual influences others,
prefacing his dissent with conformity increase or makes errors, or deviates from the group’s norms (pro-
decrease his influence? posed by Edwin Hollander).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
208 C H A P T E R 7
The Diligence of Dissenters Part of the secret of even consider the validity of the minority’s position
the unique influence of minorities lies in the quality (Thompson, Mannix, & Bazerman, 1988).
of their argumentation. Those who know that they
are members of the majority position on an issue A unanimity rule helps the minority, and the
feel less pressure to articulate their points clearly, for majority-rules procedure benefits the majority. In
they expect that, with numbers on their side, they one study three-person groups role played owners
are likely to carry the day. But the individual who of three small businesses negotiating to rent a shared
holds the minority position feels more intently the marketplace. Two of the members agreed with one
need to craft persuasive messages. Disagreeing with another on several of the key issues, but the third
others is not a situation most people find enjoyable, member was the lone minority. Some of the groups
and so few enter into this predicament without worked under a unanimity rule, which stipulated
considering the strength of their own arguments that all three parties must agree to the terms of the
and their reasonableness. Minorities are likely to final decision, but others were bound by the
have put more thought into the issue, and, as a majority-rules stipulation. As expected, the group
result, they are able to ready a stronger defense of working under the unanimity rule reached a decision
their position (Guinote, Brown, & Fiske, 2006). In that was fairer to all three of the parties than did the
a related study, researchers found that individuals groups that operated under the majority-rules order,
who knew they would be arguing against the but when the group based its decision on majority-
views of the majority prepared more diligently for rules, the majority formed a coalition that blocked
their meetings (Van Hiel & Franssen, 2003). the minority. Group members’ personal motivations,
however, moderated this tendency in a significant
Researchers tested the augmented argumenta- way, for the pernicious effects of the groups’ decision
tive skill of minorities by asking individuals to read rule only occurred when members were motivated
about a controversial medical case and then decide if to maximize their own personal rewards rather than
they supported the physicians’ decision in the matter. the rewards for the entire group (Ten Velden,
Before being given the opportunity to meet with Beersma & De Dreu, 2007).
others to discuss the case, the participants were told
that 78% of the others agreed with them or that only 7-2c Dynamic Social Impact Theory
22% shared their view. Participants then were asked
to provide their arguments and reasons in support of The majority assumes change takes place when mem-
their position in writing. The researchers then gave bers recognize the wisdom of the collective and con-
these written arguments to raters who evaluated the form to its choices. The minority, in contrast, thinks
messages for creativity and strength. As expected, the change occurs when the majority reexamines and
“minorities” crafted better arguments than those in revises its position. But change in groups is actually a
the “majority” (Kenworthy et al., 2008). mutual process, with the majority influencing the
minority and the minority influencing the majority
Decision Rules and Dissent Juror #8 faced a dif- (Mason, Conrey, & Smith, 2007).
ficult situation—he alone disagreed with all the others
in the group—but one aspect of the group situation Dynamic social impact theory, as proposed
helped him cope: the group’s decision rule. The law by Latané (1997) and his colleagues, describes the
required the group to operate under the rule of una-
nimity, meaning that all group members had to agree dynamic social impact theory An extension of
on the decision before the case was closed. If a group Latané’s social impact theory, which assumes that influence
operates under a unanimity rule, then the lone minor- is a function of the strength, the immediacy, and the num-
ity has far more power over the others. But if the ber of sources present and that this influence results in con-
group adopts a majority-rules procedure, then the solidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity
majority can reach its decision without having to in groups that are spatially distributed and interacting
repeatedly over time (developed by Bibb Latané).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 209
Do You Prefer to Agree or Dissent?
Arguing for an unpopular position and not backing down when challenged can be a stressful experience. When
factions form during group deliberations, members challenge each other, and the majority pressures the minority
to comply with their decisions, individuals who are more comfortable being different from other people are
more likely to dissent (Maslach, Stapp, & Santee, 1985).
Instructions: Read each statement, and using the following scale, place a number from 1 to 5 to the left of
the item that best describes your willingness to perform the act.
1 ¼ Not at all willing to do this 3 ¼ Slightly willing 5 ¼ Very much willing to do this
2 ¼ Not very willing 4 ¼ Fairly willing
1. Give a lecture to a large audience.
2. Raise your hand to ask a question in a meeting or lecture.
3. Volunteer to head a committee for a group of people you do not know very well.
4. Tell a person that you like him/her.
5. Publicly challenge a speaker whose position clashes with your own.
6. Accept a nomination to be a leader of a group.
7. Present a personal opinion, on a controversial issue, to a group of strangers.
8. When asked to introduce yourself, say something more personal about yourself than just your name
and occupation.
9. Give an informal talk in front of a small group of classmates or colleagues.
10. Speak up about your ideas even though you are uncertain of whether you are correct.
11. Perform on a stage before a large audience.
12. Give your opinion on a controversial issue even though no one has asked for it.
Scoring: Add your answer to all 12 items to yield a total. A score of 38 is close to the average score, but if
your total is less than 29 you are low in individuation and above 47 you are high in individuation. High scorers
tend to be more comfortable doing things differently than other people—they may have distinctive possessions,
use a nickname, and pursue hobbies that are unusual. They are also more likely to express unique opinions and
criticisms, while looking directly into people’s eyes.
processes underlying this give-and-take between the even when individuals are assigned at random to
majority and the minority. As noted earlier in the rooms in college dormitories, over the course of
chapter, social impact theory suggests that influence the academic year, their attitudes on a variety of
is determined by the strength, immediacy, and num- topics become more and more similar (Cullum
ber of sources present. Dynamic social impact theory & Harton, 2007). The opinions held by a
extends this basic principle by describing how groups, majority of the group tend to spread throughout
as complex systems, are constantly organizing and the group, and the minority dwindles in size.
reorganizing in four basic patterns: consolidation, clus-
tering, correlation, and continuing diversity. ■ Clustering. As the law of social impact suggests,
people are more influenced by their closest
■ Consolidation. As individuals interact with one neighbors, so clusters of group members with
another regularly, their actions, attitudes, and similar opinions emerge in groups. Clustering is
opinions become more uniform. For example, more likely when (a) group members
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
210 C H A P T E R 7
communicate more frequently with members other items (correlation), and some individuals refused
who are close by and less frequently with more to change their answers, even though no one else
distant group members and (b) if members can agreed with them (continuing diversity).
change locations to join similar others.
These four patterns vary depending on the
■ Correlation. Over time, the group members’ number of times the group holds its discussion,
opinions on a variety of issues—even ones that the dispersion of the group members, the group’s
are not discussed openly in the group—converge, communication network, the status of particular
so that their opinions become correlated. Stu- individuals, the group members’ desire to reach
dents living on the same floor of a dorm, for agreement, and other aspects of the situation (Miller
example, find that they agree on topics that they & Brunner, 2008). The four tendencies are robust,
have discussed during the year—such as the value however, and answer some key questions about
of certain majors or the best times to work out in influence in groups. Do most groups eventually
the fitness center—but that they also agree on converge on a single opinion that represents the
topics they have never discussed or even consid- average across all members? Dynamic social impact
ered discussing: the value of labor unions, the theory says no—groups tend to become polarized on
benefits of the Greek system, and human cloning issues as clusters form within the group. Does social
(Cullum & Harton, 2007). pressure eventually force all those who disagree with
the majority to conform? Again, dynamic social
■ Continuing diversity. Because of clustering, impact theory suggests that minorities, particularly
members of minorities are often shielded from in spatially distributed groups, are protected from
the influence attempts of the majority, and influence. So long as minorities can cluster together,
their beliefs continue within the group. diversity in groups is ensured (for more information,
Diversity drops if the majority is very large and see Harton & Bullock, 2007; Latané & Bourgeois,
if the members of the minority are physically 1996, 2001; Vallacher & Nowak, 2007).
isolated from one another, but diversity con-
tinues when the members of the minority who 7-3 SOURCES OF GROUP
communicate with the majority resist the
majority’s influence attempts. INFLUENCE
Social psychologist Helen Harton and her col- Many people think of conformity in a negative way.
leagues identified all four patterns in a study of class- They assume that people who change to agree with
room groups (Harton et al., 1998). They asked others are so weak-willed that they lack the inner
students to answer several multiple-choice questions fortitude to stand up for their personal beliefs. This
twice—once on their own and once after talking pejorative view, unfortunately, underestimates the
about the questions with the two people sitting on complexity of social influence, for individuals in any
either side of them. Consolidation occurred on several group change their behavior for a variety of reasons
of the questions. On one question, 17 of the 30 (see Figure 7.6). First, conformity is in many cases an
students favored an incorrect alternative before dis- automatic, spontaneous reaction rather than a mind-
cussion. After discussion, five more students changed ful one. Second, conformity is often the most reason-
their answers and sided with the incorrect able response in a situation: When others are well-
majority—including three students who had initially informed but we ourselves are ignorant, it’s wise to
answered the question correctly. The majority use them as an informational resource. Third, people
increased from 57% to 73%. Clustering was also often conform because they accept the legitimacy of
apparent; 11 students disagreed with both of their the group and its norms. Last, conformity is often a
neighbors initially, but after discussion, only 5 stu- means of avoiding criticism, abuse, and exclusion.
dents disagreed with both neighbors. Students within
clusters also tended to give the same answers on
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 211
Informational display, such as crossing his or her arms, others nearby
influence often mimic it, but without realizing they are doing so
(Chartrand & Lakin, 2013). If one group member
Implicit Social Normative smiles, yawns, or frowns, others in the group will
influence influence influence join in the levity, begin yawning, or frown as well
(Hess & Fischer, 2013). Even jurors, dealing with as
Interpersonal serious an issue as a murder case, laugh frequently and
influence collectively. When investigators were given access to a
jury that deliberated for several days, they identified
F I G U R E 7.6 Four psychological and interpersonal 51 sequences of group laughter. Most of this laughter
sources of majority and minority social influence in involved many of the group members, and it served
groups. to relieve tension, increase cohesion, identify errors in
judgment, and mark points where the group had
These causes of conformity—the implicit, informa- moved too far off track (Keyton & Beck, 2010).
tional, normative, and the interpersonal—are exam-
ined in the next section (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Mindlessness Hardly anyone (9%) handed over
Kelley, 1952). their phone when approached by a total stranger
on a rainy day in a train station and asked “Can I
7-3a Implicit Influence borrow your phone? I need to make an important
call.” But when the request was prefaced with a
As you watch a tour group moving across a college nonsensical initial comment—”Sorry about the
campus, a queue moving gradually forward toward a rain”—a whopping 47% handed over their phone
ticket window, or a jury deliberating, the individual (Brooks, Dai, & Schweitzer, 2014).
group members likely believe that they are carefully
processing information before making one deliberate Many group situations are so routine that mem-
choice after another. But, at a level outside of their bers don’t concentrate on what they are doing. When
awareness, they are responding cognitively, emotion- standing in a line for fast food, finding a seat in a
ally, and behaviorally to the people around them. classroom, or voting to approve the group’s minutes
Because of implicit influence, the tour group from the last meeting, people act on the basis of habit.
spontaneously forms a semicircle to listen to the When in a state of mindlessness, people aren’t ask-
guide, the queue members maintain a set distance ing themselves, “Should I agree?” They aren’t even
between each member, and the jurors’ speak in the thinking about what they are doing and so conform
same tones and cadence as each other—all without almost automatically (Langer, 1989).
any conscious awareness (Hodges, 2015).
Social psychologist Ellen Langer and her associ-
Mimicry People often deliberately imitate each ates demonstrated mindless conformity by asking
other, but mimicry involves an unconscious copying adults using a photocopier at a university library:
of the behavior others are exhibiting. When, for “Excuse me. May I use the Xerox machine?” In
example, one person adopts a particular nonverbal the control condition, no justification for the request
was offered. In the second condition, a reasonable
excuse was provided: “I’m in a rush.” In the third
condition, the experimenter offered a senseless
explanation: “I have to make some copies.” (Of
implicit influence Unlike explicit, consciously recog- mindlessness A state of reduced cognitive processing
nized social influence, unnoticed and largely automatic characterized by actions based on habit, routine, or pre-
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions to other viously formed discriminations rather than conscious
people. deliberation.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
212 C H A P T E R 7
course, the requester had to make copies; why else ourselves to other individuals. Our groups some-
use the machine?) The magnitude of the request was times even deliberately gather information about
also varied; the experimenter explained that either members’ opinions by taking a so-called straw poll.
5 or 20 copies were needed (Langer, Blank, & We also gather information about others’ views
Chanowitz, 1978). informally during routine interactions. Like poll-
sters who gauge public sentiment by sampling opi-
Langer felt that subjects would be shocked out nions in surveys of communities, we take note of
of their mindlessness if the experimenters (1) failed our fellow group members’ actions and beliefs and
to provide any excuse whatsoever or (2) asked to revise our own positions accordingly (Gerard &
make a large rather than a small number of copies. Orive, 1987).
But if an explanation were offered—even a sense-
less one and the favor wasn’t too big—Langer felt Our sampling of others’ opinions is not entirely
that subjects would mindlessly agree to the accurate, however. We often oversample the opi-
request. These predictions were supported; over nions of those in our own group compared to those
90% of the subjects agreed to the request if some of people outside of our group (Denrell & Le Mens,
explanation was offered—even a nonsensical one 2007). If we happen to talk more with some group
(Langer, 1989). members more than with others, we tend to base
our inferences about the entire group’s opinions on
7-3b Informational Influence that small and biased sample. If we are fringe mem-
bers of the group, we may endorse positions that
In the Twelve Angry Men jury, Juror #11 changed are not fully consistent with the group’s because our
his verdict from guilty to not guilty, but he did not isolation prevents us from accessing the social infor-
mindlessly go along. Rather, when Juror #11 mation we need to accurately estimate the group’s
learned that Juror #8 had a “reasonable doubt,” opinions. The false consensus effect is common
he wondered, “Why did Juror #8 draw different in groups: We assume that there is more support for
conclusions about the case than I did?” and “Am our position than there actually is (Krueger &
I correct in my interpretation of the evidence?” Clement, 1997; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977).
His reaction illustrates informational influence:
acceptance of “information obtained from another Dual Process Theory You are visiting a new
as evidence about reality” (Deutsch & Gerard, p. town and need to pick a restaurant for dinner: Do
629). If you learn that 99 other reasonable people you go to the one that seems popular or one that is
favor Plan A over Plan B, you will likely adopt Plan nearly empty? When you are picking a movie to
A because “everyone else does.” Behavioral econ- watch on Netflix, do you favor one that many of
omists may call going along with the crowd herding, your friends have watched or do you pick one that
but they underscore its rational basis: There is infor- no one has ever heard of? According to the dual
mation revealed in the choices other people make process theories of informational influence, we
(Raafat, Chater, & Frith, 2009). are influenced by other people’s choices for two rea-
sons. First, learning about other’s responses can trig-
Social Comparison Social comparison theory, as ger a thoughtful analysis, or elaboration, of the issues
discussed in Chapter 4, assumes that we sometimes
evaluate the accuracy of our beliefs and gauge the false consensus effect Perceivers’ tendency to assume
quality of our personal attributes by comparing that their beliefs, attributes, and actions are relatively
common and appropriate in any given situation.
informational influence Change-promoting interper- dual process theories of influence In general, any
sonal processes that are based on the informational value conceptual analysis that identifies two sources or forms
of the responses of others in the situation. of influence: direct (such as persuasion and discussion)
and indirect (such as imitation and herding).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 213
at hand. When we are confronted with an opinion opinion, if we notice that the minority position
that is different from our own, we review their argu- is gaining ground on the majority, then we may
ments, look for weaknesses, reexamine our own all change sides as well, creating a cascade: a rapid
ideas on the topic, and revise our position if revision opinion shift that flows throughout the group
is warranted. These cognitive responses are termed (Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). Social psychologist
direct processes since they prompt a more thorough, Russell Clark (1999, 2001) examined this process
rational analysis of the issue (see Levine & Tindale, by measuring observers’ verdicts after each round
2015; Martin & Hewstone, 2010 for reviews). of balloting in a jury trial. He first provided obser-
vers with a detailed description of a hypothetical
Second, these direct informational influence trial and jury deliberation patterned after the one
processes are complemented by less rational, described in Twelve Angry Men. He then asked the
more indirect processes (Moskowitz & Chaiken, observers to rate the guilt of the defendant after
2001). Particularly when our cognitive resources learning that, on the first ballot, the vote was 11
are limited or when we are not motivated to do against 1 with the majority favoring a guilty ver-
the cognitive work necessary to weigh the infor- dict. Nearly all the observers agreed with the
mation available to us, we use simplifying inferen- majority, but as the deliberations progressed, the
tial principles, termed heuristics, to reach observers learned that the minority position was
decisions quickly (Kahneman, 2011). We might, growing from 9 to 3, to 6 to 6, to 3 to 9, and
for example, base our decision on our mood rather eventually 0 to 12. With each progressive vote, the
than the quality of others’ arguments—people in observers shifted their own ratings from guilty to not
good moods tend to conform more than those in guilty. Other research has suggested that individuals
bad ones (Tong et al., 2008). If others in the group are particularly likely to join an expanding minority
speak eloquently using very general, abstract terms when the minority offers cogent arguments support-
rather than specifics, we might assume that they ing its position and when other defectors are thought
know what they are talking about and will gravi- to have been swayed by the logic of the minority’s
tate toward their position (Sigall, Mucchi-Faina, & arguments rather than by self-interest (Gordijn, De
Mosso, 2006). Vries, & De Dreu, 2002).
Informational Influence of Minorities Minority 7-3c Normative Influence
influence also results from both direct and indirect
processes. As Moscovici argued, minorities create Informational influence occurs because others’
cognitive conflicts that challenge the status quo of responses convey information concerning the nature
the group and call for a reevaluation of issues at of the social setting and how most people are respond-
hand. Minority dissent can undermine our cer- ing to that setting. Normative influence, in con-
tainty and force us to seek out new information trast, occurs when members tailor their actions and
about the situation. This increase in elaborative attitudes to match the norms of the group situation.
processing causes us to take more time to reach a The members of the majority in the Twelve Angry
decision, and thereby prompts us to consider mul- Men jury, for example, did more than just think:
tiple perspectives (Peterson & Nemeth, 1996). But “Most everyone in the group agrees with me.” They
minority influence can also trigger indirect pro- also recognized that their position was the normative
cesses, just like majority influence does. Because
we are sensitive to shifts in the group’s general
heuristic An inferential principle or rule of thumb that normative influence Change-promoting interpersonal
people use to reach conclusions when the amount of avail- processes based on social norms, standards, and convention.
able information is limited, ambiguous, or contradictory. Because individuals internalize their group’s norms, they
strive to act in ways that are consistent with those norms.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
214 C H A P T E R 7
one: “This group has decided the defendant is guilty the relationship between informational and normative
and anyone who believes differently is going against influence and two different types of social norms:
the norms of this group” (Nolan, 2016). descriptive and injunctive. As noted in Chapter 5, a
descriptive norm defines what people typically do in
Dissonance and Dissent Normative influence any given situation—the “normal” course of action.
causes members to feel, think, and act in ways Injunctive norms describe what people should do in
that are consistent with the group’s norms (see any given situation. Both descriptive norms (informa-
Chapter 6). When people identify with their tional influence) and injunctive norms (normative
groups, they feel duty-bound to adhere to the influence) are powerful, but Cialdini’s focus theory
group’s norms; they accept the legitimacy of the suggests that these two forms of influence work in
established norms; and they recognize the impor- different ways. Informational influence requires indi-
tance of supporting these norms. Thus, people obey viduals notice what most others do in a situation, and
norms not only because they fear the negative so it makes few cognitive demands on individuals.
interpersonal consequences—ostracism, ridicule, Normative influence, in contrast, requires more cog-
punishment—that their nonconformity may pro- nitive resources; only when members can focus on
duce, but also because they feel personally com- the injunctive norm and its implications will indivi-
pelled to live up to their own expectations. duals change to comply with the norm’s standard
(e.g., Goldstein & Cialdini, 2011).
Discovering one has managed to wander out-
side of the group’s norms generates a negative reac- Cialdini and his colleagues have tested the
tion that is akin to cognitive dissonance. As noted in impact of these norms on people’s behavior by
Chapter 5, cognitive dissonance is such an unpleas- making each type of norm salient in a given situa-
ant state that people are motivated to take steps to tion, and seeing if people comply. For example, in
reduce dissonance whenever it occurs. Dissonance his studies of littering, he deliberately litters park-
theory originally focused on how people respond ing lots and sidewalks and then watches if people
when they hold two inconsistent cognitions, but conform to the descriptive norm (“Everyone lit-
researchers have confirmed that people also experi- ters”) by littering as well. They do, particularly if
ence dissonance when they discover that they do they see another person (a member of the research
not agree with other group members. In one team) who actively litters. But Cialdini prevented
study, individuals with extreme opinions on issues littering in the same littered environments by
were led to believe they were going to discuss these making the injunctive norm “It is wrong to litter”
issues with four or five other people who had more salient. He did this by having a confederate
directly opposing opinions. Before the discussion, pick up a piece of litter (a discarded food bag) and
the participants described their emotions, and, as dispose of it properly in a waste bin. Once the
expected, they were not positive: Participants injunctive norm was activated, people resisted
reported feeling more uneasy, uncomfortable, the descriptive norm and instead complied with
tense, bothered, and concerned—all indications of the injunctive one (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren,
cognitive dissonance (Matz & Wood, 2005). 1993, Study 3).
Focus Theory Robert Cialdini (2011), in his In other contexts, however, descriptive norms
focus theory of normative conduct, explains may overwhelm injunctive ones. For example,
some public service announcements and regulatory
focus theory of normative conduct An explanation of signs backfire: They increase the very behaviors
influence that assumes descriptive and injunctive norms they are designed to curtail. Signs such as “Do
influence behavior when they are made salient and there- not walk on the grass,” “Do not litter,” “Speed
fore attended to (developed by Robert Cialdini). limit 55” may confirm an injunctive norm, but
they also suggest that most people walk on the
grass, litter, and drive too fast. A “Do not litter”
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 215
Does Conformity Come Naturally to Humans?
Natural selection did not just encourage humans to volunteers were to decide if two rotated three-
gather in groups, but to gather in smooth functioning dimensional objects were identical. To create social
groups. Group life requires coordinated action, and influence during the mental rotation task, as partici-
social influence is the means to achieve that coordina- pants made their judgments, they were presented with
tion. Homo sapiens’ responsiveness to social influence the responses of four peers who, on half of the trials,
may, in fact, be one of our species’ strengths. Confor- chose the wrong answer. The researchers discovered
mity has been documented in other species but that when participants agreed with the group (even
humans—compared to other primates—are more when the group was incorrect), portions of their brain
likely to adjust their actions to match those of others associated with processing visual information were
around them. Researchers confirmed our capacity for most active—they assumed the others’ responses were
conformity by comparing the choices of two-year-old valid and adopted their solution as their own. But when
children to the responses of two other species of great they disagreed with the group, portions of the brain
apes (orangutans and chimpanzees). Only the human responsible for strong emotional responses (the amyg-
children adjusted their strategies based on the choices dala) showed evidence of high neuronal activity. Other
of peers they observed: the other apes never con- investigations have confirmed this finding, and suggest
formed (Haun, Rekers, & Tomasello, 2014). that when people believe their opinions are endorsed
by others, the regions of their brain associated with
Brain-imaging studies also suggest that conformity rewards (the ventral striatum) react. But when they
to social norms is an evolved mechanism that is sus- discover no one agrees with them, the discomfort of
tained by neuronal systems that monitor social infor- dissent is so great that it triggers activity in portions of
mation, including rewards and threats. By combining the brain associated with pain, fear, and stress (Bern
the Asch situation with functional magnetic resonance et al., 2005; Campbell-Meiklejohn et al., 2010, 2012).
imaging (fMRI) procedures, researchers have succeeded We are, apparently, neurologically ready to enjoy
in measuring people’s neuronal activity when they are agreeing with others more than disagreeing.
conforming or dissenting. In one investigation,
reduces littering so long as it is posted in an area evidence calmly and carefully. Instead, they com-
that is clean, but the same sign posted in a littered plained, demanded, threatened, pleaded, negotiated,
environment actually increases littering (Keizer, pressured, manipulated, insulted, and shouted—even
Lindenberg, & Steg, 2011). threatening one another with physical harm—in an
attempt to change one another’s opinions so the
7-3d Interpersonal Influence group could reach a unanimous decision. When
groups discover a nonconformist—a deviant—in
Western societies claim to value nonconformity and their midst, they sometimes use interpersonal pressure
independence, but in most situations dissent is not to force the member to conform.
rewarded. In fact, it is met with interpersonal
influence: social responses that explicitly, roughly, Stanley Schachter (1951) documented inter-
and sometimes even coercively force others to con- personal influence in his classic “deviant in the
form. In the Twelve Angry Men jury, the men did not group” study. He recruited members to all-male
dispassionately discuss their perceptions of the discussion clubs, but made sure each group included
three confederates trained to enact one of three
interpersonal influence Change-promoting interper- roles: The deviant always disagreed with the major-
sonal processes based on group members selectively ity. The slider disagreed initially but conformed over
encouraging conformity and discouraging or even pun- the course of the discussion. The mode served as a
ishing nonconformity. control; he consistently agreed with the majority.
Schachter also manipulated the groups’ cohesive-
ness by putting some of the participants in clubs
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
216 C H A P T E R 7
To mostCommunication rate
deviants
To excluded
deviants
To the mode
To the slider
Time
F I G U R E 7.7 Communication rates with a mode, a slider, a deviant who is excluded, and a deviant who is
included. Schachter’s (1951) study of communication found that the person who disagreed with the others (the devi-
ant) usually received the most communication throughout the discussion period. The only exception occurred in cohe-
sive groups working on a relevant task whose members disliked the deviant. In this case, communications tapered off.
The average number of communications addressed to the mode increased slightly over the session, while communica-
tion with the slider decreased.
that interested them and others in clubs that did not Influence and Ostracism Figure 7.7 summarizes
interest them. He assumed that people with com- Schachter’s findings. In most cases, the group com-
mon interests would be more cohesive than those municated with the slider and the mode at a rela-
with disparate interests. Also, the groups discussed a tively low rate throughout the session, whereas
topic that was either relevant or irrelevant to the communications with the deviant increased during
group’s stated purpose. the first 35 minutes of discussion. At the 35-minute
mark, however, some groups seemed to have
Schachter kept track of each comment directed rejected the deviant. These groups were cohesive,
to the deviant, slider, and mode by the other group working on a task that was relevant to the group’s
members. He predicted that the group would ini- goals and whose members developed a negative
tially communicate with the mode, deviant, and attitude toward the deviant. Schachter discovered
slider at equal rates. But once the group became that not all groups disliked the deviant and that
aware of the deviant’s and slider’s disagreement, this level of liking played a key role in how the
group members would concentrate on these two deviant was treated. If the group developed more
participants. Schachter believed that communica- positive feelings for the deviant, communication
tion would continue at a high rate until the dis- increased all the way up to the final minute. If the
senter capitulated to the majority opinion (as in group disliked the deviant, communication
the case of the slider) or until the majority con- dropped precipitously.
cluded that the deviant would not budge from his
position (as in the case of the persistent deviant), but Schachter’s findings highlight the difference
that this reaction would be exacerbated by the between inclusive and exclusive reactions to minor-
group’s cohesiveness and the relevance of the task. ities (see Levine & Kerr, 2007, for a review). Most
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 217
of the groups displayed an inclusive reaction to the were liked the least. Moreover, even the individ-
deviant: Communication between the majority and ual who abandons his or her initial position to
the minority was intensive and hostile, but the agree with the group is liked less than a conform-
minority was still perceived to be a member of ist. Members of the majority are gratified when a
the ingroup. If an exclusive reaction occurred, how- member of the minority converts, but they are
ever, communication with the deviant dwindled particularly troubled when a member of the
along with overt hostility, and the deviant was per- majority “goes over to the other side” (Prislin,
ceptually removed from the group by the members Limbert, & Bauer, 2000).
of the majority. An exclusive reaction becomes
more likely when group members think that their Subsequent studies have replicated this relation-
group is very heterogeneous, and if the dissenter is ship between rejection and nonconformity, although
inflexible and the issue is important (Gerard, 1953). these studies also identify certain situational factors
So-called double minorities—individuals who dis- that increase the magnitude of this relationship.
agree with the group and also possess one or Task relevance, cohesiveness, group consensus, inter-
more other unique qualities that distinguish them dependence, behavior extremity, newcomer status,
from the rest of the group—are also more likely to and the degree of threat posed by the dissenter all
face exclusion (Sampson & Brandon, 1964). work to increase rejection. The deviant’s contribu-
tion to the task, apologies for deviation, and history
Interpersonal Rejection The group members did of previous conformity reduce the likelihood of
not just argue with the deviant—they also rejected rejection, as do norms that encourage deviation
the deviant. When Schachter’s participants rated and innovation (Levine & Kerr, 2007; Rink & Elle-
each other on likeability, the deviant was the socio- mers, 2011; Tata et al., 1996).
metric outcast, whereas the mode was liked the
most. The deviant was also saddled with the unde- The Black-Sheep Effect Social identity processes
sirable chores of the group; the mode and slider were play a particularly critical role in determining mem-
assigned more desirable positions. This rejection was bers’ reactions to deviants and conformists. Social
more pronounced in the more cohesive groups. identity theory, as discussed in Chapter 3, suggests
that members share a common identity that defines
The group’s dislike of dissenters even extended the prototypical qualities of a member and
to sliders, even though they do little to provoke encourages a distinction between members and
rejection. They begin the discussion by taking a nonmembers. Group members find deviants within
position that few favor, but after a time they listen their midst to be distressing because they call into
to reason and shift. What’s not to like about such a question the group’s positive identity and make
reasonable person? Yet, Schachter’s findings show hazy the distinctiveness of the ingroup relative to
that the slider was not as well-liked as someone outgroups. These psychological processes, which
who sided with the majority all along (the mode), are referred to as subjective group dynamics,
for any disagreement with a group is enough to will cause individuals to react negatively to dissen-
lower one’s interpersonal acceptance. Social psychol- ters with whom they share only category member-
ogist John Levine and his associates, across a series of ships. A fan of the Arsenal soccer team, for example,
studies, have examined reactions to all types of devi- will react negatively to another Arsenal fan who
ants: those who start off neutral and then conform,
others who begin as extreme deviants and then shift subjective group dynamics Psychological and inter-
over to the majority, and even those who start off personal processes that result from social categorization
with the majority and then slide toward dissent (see and identification processes, including members’ desire
Levine, 1980; Levine & Kerr, 2007). Levine, like to sustain the positive distinctiveness of the ingroup and
Schachter, found that nonconformists and those the validity of its shared beliefs.
who were initially neutral but eventually disagreed
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
218 C H A P T E R 7
expresses admiration for the play of the Manchester group (Dupuis et al., 2016; Packer, 2008b, Packer,
United forward—even though the two fans might 2009; Packer & Chasteen, 2010).
never actually meet. One intriguing consequence of
subjective group dynamics: Ingroup members are 7-3e When Influence Inhibits: The
sometimes judged more harshly than outgroup
members when they perform identical behaviors. Bystander Effect
A statement that Manchester United played bril-
liantly will be tolerated when spoken by a Man U Human groups could not form, remain intact, and
fan, but if an Arsenal fan expresses such a belief, he achieve their goals if their members did not contin-
or she would be roundly criticized by other Arsenal ually, and successfully, influence one another. This
fans. This tendency is termed the black-sheep readiness to cooperate and conform, however, can
effect (Marques, 2010). cause individuals to follow when they should lead
and comply when they would be better off resist-
Identity and Dissent Social identity processes not ing. A number of negative, dysfunctional group
only influence the group’s reaction to dissent, but phenomena—peer pressure, groupthink, hazing,
also members’ decisions about conforming or dis- bullying, conflict, and intergroup conflict—are sus-
senting. Although individuals who strongly identify tained, at least in part, by social influence processes.
with their group may tend to support its decisions This section considers one such process in detail:
out of misguided loyalty, social psychologist the bystander effect.
Dominic Packer’s normative conflict model of dis-
sent argues that members who are strongly commit- Inhibition of Helping in Groups In the early
ted to the group are more, rather than less, likely to morning of March 13, 1964, a young woman
dissent. Those who do not identify with their group named Catherine Genovese (“Kitty” to her friends)
tend to display uneasy conformity—they keep quiet was attacked and killed in Queens, New York.
and go along with the group—or they withdraw Many residents of the area were roused from their
from the group altogether. In contrast, members sleep by the noise of the attack and wondered what
who identify strongly with the group are willing to was happening, but none of them helped directly.
accept the interpersonal costs that come with dissent, Only one person called the police (Manning,
in the hope that the group will take steps to correct Levine, & Collins, 2007).
its mistake. Their dissent is “motivated by a desire to
change group norms and initiate improvement Many blamed the bystanders, suggesting that
within a group” (Packer, 2008b, p. 54). In support the urbanites were cruel, apathetic, or lacking the
of the model, Packer and his colleague have found moral compunction needed to compel them to
that members who identify with their groups are act. But social psychologists Bibb Latané and John
more likely to dissent than less committed members, Darley (1970) offered a different explanation: Social
but only when they believe the group’s position is pressures in the situation, they suggested, may have
collectively harmful. Significantly, people who iden- interfered with people’s capacity to respond in a
tify with their group are not more likely to dissent helpful way to the emergency.
when doing so would improve their own personal
circumstances, but would not necessarily benefit the Latané and Darley investigated this possibility by
simulating an emergency in their laboratory. While
black-sheep effect The tendency for group members to male college students completed some bogus ques-
evaluate a group member who performs an offensive tionnaires, Latané and Darley pumped white smoke
behavior more harshly than an outgroup member who through an air vent into the test room. Some parti-
performs the same offense. cipants were alone in the room, but others worked
in three-person groups consisting of one participant
and two confederates. The confederates pretended
to be participants, but they ignored the emergency.
As the room filled with smoke, they nonchalantly
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 219
glanced at the vent, shrugged, and went back to their their interpretation of the event. If, however, each
questionnaires. If the participant mentioned the group member is responding similarly—looking to
smoke to them, they said merely “I dunno.” In a the other group members for information about
third condition, all three members of the group how to interpret the situation—then each nonre-
were actual participants. sponding bystander sends the same inaccurate message
to every other nonresponding bystander: “It’s OK; no
When tested alone, participants usually left the help is needed.” In situations that are obviously emer-
room to report the smoke within two minutes; 75% gencies, the bystander effect disappears (Clark &
reported the emergency within the six-minute time Word, 1972, 1974; Fischer et al., 2011).
limit. Participants tested in groups behaved very
differently. Only 10% of the participants tested Second, normative influence does not enjoin
with the passive confederates ever reported the bystanders to help strangers. Most everyday situa-
smoke, and the reporting percentage reached no tions do not require one act as a Good Samaritan
higher than 15% even when all three group mem- (Feigenson, 2000), but they do caution against
bers were actual participants. By the time the six- involvement in others’ affairs. In most cultures
minute period was up, the room was so smoky that (but not all), it is not “normal” to interact with
participants could not see the far wall. They others whom you do not know, let alone offer
coughed and rubbed their eyes, but they stayed at them some sort of assistance. Most people prefer
their tables, fanning the fumes away from their to appear poised and normal in social settings and
papers so they could finish their questionnaires. actively avoid doing anything that may lead to
embarrassment. In an ambiguous emergency, peo-
Latané and Darley’s work demonstrated the ple fear that they will look foolish if they offer assis-
bystander effect—people are less likely to help tance to someone who does not need it, so they
when in groups rather than alone—and soon other look the other way rather than get involved
investigators confirmed these results. A statistical (Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976). These normative
review of approximately 50 studies of nearly 6,000 pressures, however, are reduced when the people
people who faced various apparent emergencies in an emergency situation (the witnesses and the
alone or in a group indicated that groups impede person needing help) are members of the same
helping. Across these various studies, about 75% of group or social category. If individuals in the situa-
the participants tested alone intervened, but only tion know each other, then the bystander effect is
53% of the participants in groups helped (Latané & minimized—and often reversed—with larger
Nida, 1981). groups providing more help than individuals or
smaller groups (Levine et al., 2005). If “bystanders
Social Influence and the Bystander Effect But share group-level psychological relationships, group
why do people in groups not help as much as single size can encourage as well as inhibit helping”
individuals? First, emergency situations are usually (Levine & Crowther, 2008, p. 1429).
unfamiliar ones, so people who witness them do not
fully understand what is happening and how they Third, people feel less responsible when in
should respond. This ambiguity causes them to rely groups compared to being alone, and this diffusion
on the reactions of others in the situation to guide of responsibility leaves bystanders feeling that it is
not their responsibility to help. “The pressures to
bystander effect The tendency for people to help less
when they know others are present and capable of help- diffusion of responsibility A reduction of personal
ing. The effect was initially thought to be the result of responsibility experienced by individuals in groups and
apathy and a selfish unwillingness to get involved, but social collectives (identified by John Darley and Bibb
research suggests a number of cognitive and social pro- Latané in their studies of bystanders’ failures to help
cesses, including diffusion of responsibility and misinter- someone in need).
pretation that help is not needed, contribute to the effect.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
220 C H A P T E R 7
intervene do not focus on any one of the observers; their responsibilities and render their verdicts. The
instead, the responsibility for intervention is shared project’s researchers discovered that most juries usu-
among all the onlookers and is not unique to any ally begin by electing a leader and deciding if ballot-
one” (Darley & Latané, 1968, p. 378). Simply ing will be secret or public. Some juries take a straw
imagining that one will be with others in a group poll of their initial preferences, and as many as 30%
is sufficient to reduce feelings of accountability and of those groups reach complete consensus on that
helpfulness (Garcia et al., 2002). first ballot (Diamond et al., 2003; Kalven & Zeisel,
1966). But when members disagree, they initiate a
These factors, although relatively mundane consensus-seeking process. During this phase of the
social processes in most contexts, combine to cause deliberation, the group may ask the judge for
bystanders to overlook the suffering of others. The instructions and request additional information con-
bystander effect is not caused by apathy or a loss of cerning the evidence. The group spends about 75%
humanity that overtakes people when they become of its time examining evidence and the remainder
part of a collective. The effect is, instead, the predict- discussing points of law or unrelated matters (Ells-
able result of group-level social influence processes worth, 1989; Hans & Vidmar, 1991). Once the
that leave members confused, uncertain of the jury reaches a verdict, it then spends some time mak-
proper course of action, and unable to take action. ing sure that all members are willing to endorse it
(the reconciliation stage; Levett et al., 2005).
7-4 APPLICATION:
The jury’s approach to the deliberations
UNDERSTANDING JURIES depends, in part, on how it structures the task. Jury
researchers Reid Hastie, Steven Penrod, and Nancy
Groups have served as the final arbiter of guilt and Pennington (1983), in their story model of jury
innocence for centuries. As far back as the eleventh deliberation, noted that jurors generally approach
century, the neighbors of those accused of wrong- the decision in one of two ways. Some jurors appear
doing were asked both to provide information to be verdict driven. They reach a decision about the
about the actions of the accused and to weigh the verdict before deliberation and cognitively organize
evidence. Witnesses and experts now provide the the evidence into two categories: evidence that
evidence, but the jury remains responsible for favors a verdict of guilty and evidence that favors a
weighing the testimony of each person before ren- verdict of not guilty. Evidence-driven jurors, in con-
dering a verdict. More than 300,000 juries convene trast, resist making a final decision on the verdict
each year in American courtrooms alone (Hyman & until they have reviewed all the available evidence;
Tarrant, 1975). then they generate a story that weaves together the
evidence of the trial and their own expectations and
7-4a Jury Dynamics assumptions about people and similar situations in a
coherent narrative (Pennington & Hastie, 1986,
The jury situation is designed to foster careful deci- 1992). Should the jurors find, during deliberations,
sion making and tolerance for all viewpoints, but at that their stories are relatively similar, then the group
its core, a jury is a group. The jury’s final decision will be able to reach a verdict quickly. If, however,
depends not only on the evidence presented at the their stories are different, they spend time discussing
trial, the attorneys’ arguments, and the judge’s alternative stories until a consensus can be reached
instructions, but also on social influence. (Greene et al., 2004)
Stories, Evidence, and Verdicts The Chicago story model A theory of cognitive processing of trial
Jury Project, conducted in the 1950s, was one of information that suggests jurors mentally organize evi-
the first attempts to study the ways juries carry out dence in coherent, credible narratives.
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 221
Is Helping Others a Human Universal?
Imagine your zipper on your backpack breaks as you 50% of the time in Singapore, New York City, and
exit from the taxi at your destination, and now the Kuala Lampur (in Malaysia). A culture’s degree of
wind is scattering its contents about on the sidewalk. collectivism did not predict helping, but the economic
People are passing by you as you struggle to pick up prosperity of the residents of the city did. In more
your things, but will they stop and help? Does it mat- affluent countries, people were less likely to help a
ter if you are in New York City, Tokyo, or Rio de blind person or someone who inadvertently dropped
Janeiro? Are people more helpful in some cultures his pen. These were also places where the pace of life
than in others (Feygina & Henry, 2015)? was quick—as evidenced by the more rapid pace of the
passersby as they walked by without helping.
Researchers have used a variety of field methods to
examine this question. Showing considerable creativity, Several of the countries that Levine studied were
investigators typically stage a minor accident or make a also unique in their endorsement of a cultural norm
small request of passersby in different countries and that encourages prosocial behavior. This norm, called
then compare the amount of helping. Social psychologist simpatia in Spain and simpatico in Portugal, is typical
Robert Levine and his colleagues (2001), for example, of certain Spanish heritage countries; it encourages
tested the helpfulness of passersby in the largest cities of people to treat other people in a positive, polite way,
23 different countries. In each city, a young man staged including strangers. The five simpatico countries in the
three types of minor emergencies: (a) he dropped a pen study, Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, and
while walking down the street; (b) already limping from Spain, exhibited higher levels of helping (83%) com-
a known injury, he struggled to collect a dropped pile of pared to the other, non-simpatico countries (66%).
magazines; and (c) while wearing sunglasses and carry-
ing a white cane used by the blind, he paused and These findings attest to the impact of cultural
waited for help in crossing an intersection. norms, and the social influence processes they sustain, on
helping. Although humans, as a species, are uniquely
Helping rates varied substantially across the helpful relative to other species, this biological tendency
countries Levine studied. In Rio de Janeiro and San is modified to a degree by local cultural constraints.
Jose, for example, the young man was helped over People may be naturally helpful, but this tendency
90% of the time, whereas he received help less than depends on the norms of the places where they live.
Minority Influence in Juries The jury in Twelve ten. For example, in the trial of the second defendant
Angry Men is one of the best known juries in the in the Oklahoma City Bombing, Terry Nichols, the
world, but it is a very rare one: Eleven jurors ini- first vote was 10 to 2 for acquittal (Bartels, 2001).
tially favoring guilt usually means a final verdict of But the two lone jurors who favored a guilty verdict
guilt (see Devine et al., 2001). Most juries implicitly dug in to their position and carefully reviewed the
adopt a majority-rules decision norm: If a signifi- evidence for six long days. One of the jurors, a geo-
cant majority of the members (say, two-thirds) physicist, used his skill, logic, and persuasive talents
favor a verdict, then everyone in the group should to craft a compromise verdict of guilty of conspiracy
agree with that verdict. In fact, a computer model but not guilty of first-degree murder. He was suc-
that simulates jury deliberations (DICE) assumes cessful, in part, because of his recognized expertise
that a three-person coalition in a standard 12- and the rapid change in votes by four of the other
person jury will be relatively weak, but a four- jurors. These findings confirm the importance of
or five-person coalition will be fairly influential encouraging juries to take the time they need to
(Hastie et al., 1983). deliberate before rendering a final decision, particu-
larly when dealing with scientifically complex evi-
Minorities are not powerless, however. Even dence (Devine & Macken, 2016).
though the majority tends to prevail in juries, as
Figure 7.8 suggests, the minority convinces the Minorities can also deadlock the jury by refusing
majority to change in about one trial out of every to conform to the majority’s verdict, resulting in a
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
222 C H A P T E R 7
100Percentage
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12,0 11,1 10,2 9,3 8,4 7,5 6,6 5,7 4,8 3,9 2,10 1,11 0,12
Distribution of votes before deliberation (guilty, not guilty)
Final verdict
Guilty Not guilty Hung
F I G U R E 7.8 The percentage of different types of outcomes in jury trials by initial distribution of votes. If 10, 11,
or 12 of the jurors favored guilt initially, the jury returned a verdict of guilt in the majority of the cases. If, in contrast,
seven or more of the jurors favored not guilty initially, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the majority of the
cases. Minority influence, although rare, occurred in about 10% of the cases when the majority favored acquittal and
15% of the cases when the majority favored conviction.
SOURCE: Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727.
hung jury if a unanimous verdict is required. The process designed to eliminate biased jurors (voir
origin of the term “hung jury” is not certain, but it dire), and assembled the group in the courtroom.
matches “most closely to the meaning of the word A bailiff then played a recording of a trial and asked
hung as caught, stuck, or delayed” (Hans et al., 2003, the group to retire to a jury room to decide on a
p. 33). Hung juries generally occur when the evi- verdict. Except for the use of a recording, the
dence does not clearly favor one verdict, and, even groups were treated just like actual juries (Strodt-
then, occur only in approximately 10% of such cases. beck & Hook, 1961; Strodtbeck James, & Hawkin,
When a jury hangs, it is often just one or two jurors 1957; Strodtbeck & Mann, 1956).
holding out against the majority (Hans et al., 2003).
These juries tended to favor people of higher
Status and Influence Some members of the socioeconomic status (proprietors and office work-
Twelve Angry Men jury had higher status within ers) over those of lower socioeconomic status (blue-
the group than the other rank-and-file members: collar workers) when choosing a foreman, even
Juror #4, for example, was a stockbroker, whereas though no mention of occupation was made
Juror #6 worked in construction. Is it a coincidence (Strodtbeck & Lipinski, 1985). High-status mem-
that the jury paid far more attention to the ideas bers also participated more frequently in the jury’s
and suggestions of Juror #4 rather than #6? discussions, often by offering more suggestions and
providing more orientation to the task. High-status
Fairly or unfairly, people who have high pres- members were also more successful in convincing
tige or status are more influential than low-status the others that their judgments on the case were the
members. Researchers in the Chicago Jury Project most accurate. Proprietors’ opinion about the ver-
carefully replicated all aspects of an actual trial. dict formed before deliberation predicted the jury’s
They selected sets of 12 individuals from a pool of decision; the correlation between their private pre-
eligible jurors, simulated the pretrial interview deliberation opinion and the jury’s decision was
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 223
.50. For laborers, there was no significant relation- and the extent to which they were concerned
ship ðr ¼ :02Þ between their predeliberation opin- that the verdict they reached was consistent
ion and the jury’s decision (Strodtbeck et al., 1957). with the spirit of the law and with the facts of
the case. (Simon, 1980, p. 521)
In these studies, conducted in the 1950s, sex and
race differences were also apparent in juries. Women Second, jury members themselves, when asked
and racial minorities joined in the discussion less fre- to rate the quality of their group’s deliberations, are
quently than men (James, 1959; Strodtbeck et al., generally very favorable. Individuals tend to be quite
1957). Furthermore, women’s comments were negative when they evaluate the quality of many
more often relational in nature, showing solidarity decision-making groups (e.g., teams at work, organi-
and agreement, whereas men’s comments were zational meetings, committees), but they give high
more task-focused (Strodtbeck & Mann, 1956; see marks to the juries they have served on. Jurors who
also Nemeth, Endicott, & Wachtler, 1976). These were asked to rate their jury experience either agreed
inequities, however, have faded over time. Recent or strongly agreed with such statements as: “Jurors
analyses suggest that race and sex no longer deter- thoroughly discussed the relevant facts of the case,”
mine influence in juries, but that social status remains “All of the jurors listened respectfully to each other
a potent factor; those jurors who are more affluent or during deliberation,” and “The other jurors gave me
well-educated continue to be more influential than enough of a chance to express my opinions about
others (York & Cornwell, 2006). the case” (Gastil et al., 2007, p. 350). These jurors
did not report an experience like that depicted in the
7-4b How Effective Are Juries? Twelve Angry Men jury.
Given what we know about conformity and non- Third, juries do well when compared with
conformity in groups, should the jury system be judges’ decisions. In a survey of nearly 8,000 actual
modified? Asch’s studies tell us that people often criminal and civil trials, judges and juries disagreed on
conform and that even a correct minority often only 20% of the cases; for criminal trials, the jury was
loses to an incorrect majority. As we have seen, nor- somewhat more lenient than the judge, but for civil
mative, informational, and interpersonal influence trials, the disagreements were evenly split for and
are powerful forces in groups, and they can quash against the defendant. Furthermore, 80% of these dis-
individuals’ freedom to speak their minds. Juries are a agreements occurred when the weight of the evi-
time-honored tradition, but are they effective? dence was so close that the judge admitted that the
verdict could have gone either way. This match
Determining the effectiveness of juries as deciders between verdicts may explain why 77% of the judges
of guilt or innocence is a complicated task, for we can surveyed felt that the jury system was satisfactory, 20%
never know when the jury has been correct or incor- felt that it had disadvantages that should be corrected,
rect in condemning or freeing a defendant. If a clear but only 3% felt the system to be so unsatisfactory that
criterion for determining guilt existed, juries would its use should be curtailed (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966).
not be necessary in the first place. Several bits of evi-
dence, however, provide partial support for the effec- Last, jurors are hardly unbiased, rational weighers
tiveness of juries as decision makers. First, jurors seem of evidence; the defendant’s physical appearance, the
to take their role very seriously (Gastil, Burkhalter, & lawyers’ style of questioning, and the sequencing of
Black, 2007). One jury expert, after studying the evidence are just a few of the factors that bias jurors’
responses of more than 2,000 jurors participating in decisions (Greene et al., 2004; Greene & Heilbrun,
the Chicago Jury Project, concluded: 2014). These biases are largely controlled, however,
by relying on group decisions rather than individual
The most consistent theme that emerged from decisions. Simulations of juries suggest that the lone
listening to the deliberations was the serious- juror’s initial biases and preferences have very little
ness with which the jurors approached their job impact on the group’s final decision, no matter what
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
224 C H A P T E R 7
the size of the jury (Kerr & Huang, 1986). Discourse however, found in favor of Florida, ruling that a
analyses of the actual content of jury deliberations six-person jury is large enough to promote group
indicate that members openly address biases, manage deliberation, protect members from intimidation,
their conflict, and reduce decisional regret collectively fairly represent the community, and weigh the facts
(Poole & Dobosh, 2010; Sunwolf, 2010). in the case. Jury experts, however, have suggested that
the Supreme Court should have taken group dynam-
Each of these pro-jury arguments, however, can ics research into consideration before making its deci-
also be countered by other, more disquieting data sion. Modifying jury size could influence:
about juries and their capabilities. In recent years, a
number of very high-profile juries have made deci- ■ Group structure. Members of smaller juries par-
sions that in retrospect appear to have been based on ticipate at more equal rates; smaller juries are
emotion and prejudice rather than on the thoughtful more cohesive; and members of larger juries
analysis of the evidence. Studies of their deliberation exchange more information.
processes indicate that a handful of group members
dominated the group discussion, and these individuals ■ Representativeness. Smaller groups are not as rep-
succeeded, in most cases, in determining the final ver- resentative of the community as larger ones. For
dict. When investigators have asked jurors about their example, if a community was 10% Latino and
understanding of the legalities of the case, they discov- 90% Anglo, in all probability, about 80% of the
ered that many understood less than half of the judge’s 12-person juries selected from that community
instructions to the jury (Ellsworth & Reifman, 2000). would include at least one Latino, but only 40%
Jury members also have a particularly difficult time of the 6-person juries would contain Latinos.
following the arguments and evidence introduced in
complex, time-consuming trials (Cecil, Hans, & Wig- ■ Majority influence. The majority’s influence may
gins, 1991; Levett et al., 2005). These findings have be greater in smaller juries, because the likeli-
prompted some to suggest that the jury system should hood of finding a partner for one’s minority
be abolished, but others favor a more moderate coalition becomes smaller.
solution—improving juries by modifying their struc-
ture and dynamics. ■ Voting. The Supreme Court assumed that a 5 to 1
vote in a 6-person jury was the same as a 10 to 2
7-4c Improving Juries split in a 12-person group. But with the 10 to 2
vote, one is joined by a dissenting partner,
The judicial system is long on tradition, but in recent whereas in the 5 to 1 vote, one faces the majority
years, several innovations have been suggested and alone. As a result, the likelihood of a hung jury is
even implemented. Some of these reforms, such as greater in larger juries (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985).
reducing the size and the decision rules of juries, are
designed to improve the general efficiency of juries ■ Verdicts. Despite size-related changes in group
and the fairness of their procedures. Others, such as dynamics, small juries and large juries do not
note taking, help jurors to process the evidence and appear to differ significantly in the types of ver-
testimony that they must consider when reaching dicts reached—except in certain civil cases, when
their decision (Bornstein & Greene, 2017; Vidmar smaller juries tend to return larger damages (Saks,
& Hans, 2007). 1977; Saks & Hastie, 1978; Saks & Marti, 1997).
Jury Size In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court Unanimity In 1972, three men were convicted, in
returned a landmark ruling in the case of Williams v. separate trials, of assault, grand larceny, and burglary by
Florida, 1970. Williams sought to have his conviction the court system of Oregon. They appealed to the
overturned on the grounds that the deciding jury had U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that their right
included only six persons. The Supreme Court, to a fair trial had been violated because the votes of the
juries had not been unanimous. To the defendants’
dismay, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oregon
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 225
(Apodaca v. Oregon, 1972), concluding that the Sixth Courts have studied ways to make the instructions
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees only given to the jurors prior to deliberation clearer and
that a “substantial majority of the jury” must be con- more understandable (Ellsworth & Reifman, 2000).
vinced of the defendant’s guilt. Later in the ruling, the Some courts also permit jurors to (1) take notes
Supreme Court suggested that a 75% agreement con- during the presentation of evidence and use these
stitutes an acceptable minimum for most juries. notes during deliberation; (2) submit questions to
the court that, after review by judge and legal
The Court’s conclusion is, for the most part, justi- counsel, can be considered in summary statements
fied by empirical evidence. The verdict preferred by during the trial or in the presentation of additional
the majority of the jurors on their first vote usually evidence; and (3) discuss the trial among themselves
becomes the final verdict in a large percentage of the while the trial is ongoing (Vidmar & Hans, 2007).
cases, with or without a unanimity rule. The minority’s These innovations are generally associated with
opinion sometimes prevails, but, in such cases, the increased involvement of jurors in the deliberation
minority is usually so substantial that a 9 out of 12 process, but their impact on decision outcomes
majority would not have been reached anyway. appears to be modest (Devine et al., 2001).
Most juries implicitly operate according to either a
basic two-thirds or a 10-out-of-12 rule (Davis, Bray, Voir Dire The selection of jury members from a
& Holt, 1977; Stasser, Kerr, & Bray, 1982). Once most pool of potential participants occurs through a pro-
of the members of the group favor a particular verdict, cess known as voir dire. Voir dire—an alteration of
the members of the minority who are uncertain tend the French phrase vrai dire, which means “to speak
to go along with the others to support the “team” and truly”—calls for verbal or written questioning of
its verdict (Meyers, Seibold, & Kang, 2010). prospective jurors to uncover any biases or preju-
dices that may stand in the way of fairness and
Relaxing the requirement for unanimity, how- impartiality (Kovera & Austin, 2016).
ever, changes the decision-making process in juries.
Juries that do not have to reach a unanimous deci- Until the 1970s, voir dire was left primarily to the
sion render their judgments twice as quickly and are judge’s discretion; defense lawyers could submit ques-
far less likely to come to a stalemate (Foss, 1981; Kerr tions, but judges were free to disregard them if they
et al., 1976). Juries that do not need to reach una- desired. However, when convictions were overturned
nimity may not deliberate sufficiently and make on appeal because trial judges had disallowed defense
more mistakes—”convictions when the correct deci- participation in voir dire (e.g., Ham v. S. Carolina,
sion is acquittal; acquittals when the correct decision 1973), trial courts began opening up the jury selection
is conviction” (Saks & Hastie, 1978, pp. 84–85). procedure to attorneys. Systematic jury selection,
when lawyers carefully study the prospective jurors
Procedural Innovations Whereas jurors were in the pool and use voir dire to identify sympathetic
once forbidden from taking notes or discussing and antagonistic jurors, is now a common practice in
the case prior to deliberations, in a series of mod- major trials. Voir dire is regularly used, for example, in
ifications, courts have experimented with various cases in which the defendant, if convicted, faces the
types of procedural changes to determine if notes death penalty. By rejecting from the jury anyone who
help jurors to remember and process the volumes of objects to the death penalty, the prosecution can
information they receive during the trial. For assemble what is termed a death-qualified jury.
example, the courts have worked to try to clarify
information about the legal terms used in the case Systematic jury selection is controversial. Propo-
under consideration. The revised wording of such nents argue that in many political and criminal trials,
concepts as “reasonable doubt” and “preponder-
ance of evidence,” for example, has triggered voir dire The oral or written questioning of prospective
changes in how long juries deliberate and in their jurors by counsel or the judge.
eventual verdicts (Horowitz & Kirkpatrick, 1996).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
226 C H A P T E R 7
biases produced by unfair publicity, regional prejudices, judges should limit the number of jurors that law-
and unrepresentative jury rosters must be controlled if yers can challenge during voir dire. He also recom-
the defendant is to receive just treatment. Critics feel mended stricter guidelines for lawyers, who
that systematic jury selection is tantamount to jury rig- sometimes use the voir dire process to influence
ging, as it produces biased rather than fair juries and the jurors in their favor. Wrightsman suggested
works to exclude certain types of people from juries. that voir dire questioning be carried out carefully,
Death-qualified juries, for example, are not just willing so that jurors will respond honestly and that judges
to impose a death sentence, but they are also more supervise the process more closely. Voir dire is a
conviction prone than non-death-qualified juries useful way of identifying highly biased individuals,
(Filkins, Smith, & Tindale, 1998). but it should not be a means of manipulating the
composition of the jury (Wrightsman, Nietzel, &
Social psychologist Lawrence Wrightsman, an Fortune, 1998).
expert on psychology and the law, has argued that
CHAPTER REVIEW
When do people conform in groups? than face-to-face groups (Social Identity
Model of Deindividuation Effects, or
1. Social influence results from the majority SIDE effects).
impacting the minority (majority influence) and
the minority impacting the majority (minority ■ The decreasing impact of increased num-
influence). bers of sources of influence is consistent
with Bond’s (2005) meta-analytic review
2. Asch (1955) studied conformity by measuring peo- and Latané’s (1981) social impact theory,
ple’s decisions when the majority of their group’s which predicts that social influence is a
members made errors judging line lengths. function of the strength (S), the immediacy
(I ), and the number (N ) of sources
■ People in the Asch situation conformed, on present, or Social Impact ¼ fSIN.
average, on one-third of the test trials, but
most disagreed with the majority more 4. Conformity varies across group strong and
frequently than they agreed. weak situations, the sexes, across time, and
across cultures.
■ Social responses to influence include com-
pliance, conversion, congruence, indepen- ■ People who conform consistently in
dence, anticonformity, and strategic groups tend to be more authoritarian but
anticonformity. seek social approval. Nonconformists are
more self-confident.
3. Majorities are more influential when unani-
mous, in strong situations, and when larger in ■ Women conform slightly more than men,
size (up to a point). primarily in face-to-face groups. Women
may conform to increase group harmony,
■ Fewer group members conformed in the whereas men dissent to demonstrate their
test situation developed by Crutchfield independence.
(the Crutchfield situation), where their
responses were not identifiable. ■ Bond and Smith’s (1996) review suggests
that group members in collectivistic soci-
■ Individuals in groups engaged in eties yield to majority influence more
computer-mediated interactions conform often than those in individualistic societies.
at rates equal to and sometimes greater
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 227
■ Conformity rates dropped slightly in the ■ Dual process theories recognize that social
last half of the twentieth century. influence occurs when group members
systematically process available information
When do people resist the group’s influence and instead (direct process) or base their choices on
change the group? nonrational processes, such as heuristics and
emotional responses (indirect process).
1. Moscovici’s (1976) conversion theory suggests that
consistent minorities will be influential, but that 3. Normative influence prompts group members to
influence in some cases is indirect and delayed. feel, think, and act in ways that are consistent
Minorities promote conversion and innovation, with their group’s social standards.
whereas majorities promote compliance.
■ Disagreeing with others can trigger cog-
■ Behavioral consistency increases the impact nitive dissonance, an unpleasant and
of minority influence, as do idiosyncrasy neurologically detectable psychological
credits gained through prior conformity state that individuals are motivated to
(Hollander, 1971). reduce.
■ Minorities exert more effort in their ■ Cialdini’s (2011) focus theory of normative
attempts to influence than do majorities, conduct suggests that injunctive norms
and the decision rule the group adopts will (normative influences) are often, but not
differentially influence the success of always, more potent than descriptive
majorities (majority-rules) and minorities norms (informational influences).
(unanimity).
4. Interpersonal influence includes verbal and non-
2. Latané’s (1997) dynamic social impact theory uses the verbal tactics, such as complaining, demanding,
processes of consolidation, clustering, correlation, threatening, pressuring, and shouting, designed
and continuing diversity to explain majority and to induce change.
minority influence in spatially distributed groups
that interact repeatedly over time, such as class- ■ Schachter’s (1951) analysis of group
room groups (Harton et al., 1998). rejection indicates that communication
with a disliked deviant eventually
What are the sources of social influence? diminishes, at least when cohesive groups
are working on relevant tasks. Any dissent
1. Implicit influence is produced by cognitive, emo- from the group mode usually reduces
tional, and behavioral processes that are not likeability (Levine, 1980).
consciously controlled and often unnoticed.
■ Reaction to deviants results, in part, from
■ Group members tend to unconsciously subjective group dynamics triggered by social
imitate each other. identity processes. Group members who
violate norms can lead to the black-sheep
■ Mindlessness can cause individuals to con- effect—they will be evaluated more nega-
form automatically (Langer, 1989). tively than an individual who is not a
group member who performs the same
2. Informational influence takes place whenever type of action.
group members use others’ responses as refer-
ence points and informational resources. ■ Packer’s (2009) normative conflict model
suggests that strongly identified members
■ People gain information via social com- are more willing to bear social costs asso-
parison, although they often misjudge the ciated with dissent in order to improve
extent to which others agree with their group outcomes.
viewpoint (the false consensus effect).
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
228 C H A P T E R 7
5. Social influence can cause individuals to fail to ■ Most juries use either verdict-driven or
respond in emergency situations. evidence-driven deliberation strategies.
■ The bystander effect occurs when individuals ■ The verdict favored by the majority of the
help less in groups rather than when alone. members prior to deliberation (or on the
Interest in the effect was generated by the first straw poll) is usually the jury’s final
Kitty Genovese incident. verdict, although hung juries occur in
about 10% of all trials.
■ Latané and Darley (1970) confirmed the
effect of groups on helping by studying ■ Jurors who have higher status occupations
people’s reactions to staged emergencies. tend to dominate the group’s discussion.
■ Informational and normative influences 2. Studies of juries support their continued use for
contribute to the bystander effect, as does making legal decisions.
diffusion of responsibility.
■ Despite size-related changes in group
■ Cross-cultural studies of helping suggest dynamics, small and large juries do not differ
that the norms of some cultures (such as significantly in the types of verdicts reached.
simpatico cultures) prompt residents to
respond more positively to those who are ■ Juries that do not have to reach a unani-
in need (Levine et al., 2001). mous decision render their judgments
twice as quickly and are far less likely to be
Does social influence shape juries’ verdicts? hung juries.
1. The magnitude of social influence suggests that ■ Several alterations of procedure have been
the decisions reached by groups, including developed to help jurors remember and
juries, are shaped by social processes rather than process trial information, but their impact
by an unbiased weighing of evidence. is not yet known.
■ The Chicago Jury Project and work by ■ Voir dire procedures are often used to
Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1983) select jury members, but Wrightman
suggest that jurors, through deliberation, maintains that this process can undermine
develop narratives to account for evidence the representativeness of the jury
(story model). (Wrightsman et al., 1998).
RESOURCES
Chapter Case: Twelve Angry Men play and film Twelve Angry Men, and its key
message: “The minority view can be the
■ Twelve Angry Men: A Play in Three Acts by right view” (p. 1407).
Reginald Rose and Sherman L. Sergel
(1958) is based on Rose’s experiences Majority and Minority Influence
when he was summoned to jury duty. ■ “Dynamic Social Impact: A Theory of the
Both movie versions of the play, one made Origins and Evolution of Culture” by
in 1957 starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8 Helen C. Harton and Melinda Bullock
and a 1997 version with Jack Lemon tak- (2007) reviews recent studies of dynamic
ing the role, are excellent depictions of social impact theory and applies the the-
group processes. ory to explain the origins of consistencies
in human culture.
■ “One Inspiring Jury” by Phoebe C. Ells-
worth (2003) is a thorough analysis of the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
INFLUENCE 229
■ “Stability and Change within Groups” by many theoretical analyses that have been
Matthew J. Hornsey and Jolanda Jetten proposed to account for minority and
(2014) explains clearly, with strong majority influence.
empirical and theoretical documentation,
the process of change in groups through Juries Investigating Jury Deliberations, a special issue
minority and majority influence. of the journal Small Group Research (2010),
■ includes six articles based on the analysis of
Sources of Social Influence the deliberations of a jury in a death-
■ sentence trial.
■ Rebels in Groups: Dissent, Deviance, Differ-
ence and Defiance, edited by Jolanda Jetten ■ Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science
and Matthew J. Hornsey (2011), draws by Dennis J. Devine (2012) reviews 50 years
together the leading experts on minority/ of research examining how juries make
majority influence in groups and offers decisions, and integrates that work in a
insight after insight into the dynamics of multilevel model of collective deliberation.
opinion change in small groups.
American Juries: The Verdict by Neil Vidmar
■ “Social Influence in Groups” by John and Valerie P. Hans (2007) is a carefully
M. Levine and Scott R. Tindale (2015) researched analysis of the strengths and
is a thorough review of social processes possible weaknesses of the jury system.
that influence decision making in
groups, with particular attention to the
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Forsyth, Donelson R. - Group dynamics (2019, Cengage) - libgen.lc
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 723
Pages: