Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5







Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Influence Influence Presentation Transcript

  • by: Ramos, Balio, Delivios & Dy-Rastas
  • • Influence (Introduction/Definition) • Majority Influence: The Power of the Many -Influence in the Asch Situation -Predicting Majority Influence • Minority Influence: The Power of the Few -Conversion Theory of Minority Influence -Predicting Minority Influence •Consistency and Influence •Idiosyncrasy Credits •Diligence of Dissenters •Decision Rules and Dissent -Dynamic Social Impact Theory • Sources of Group Influence -Informational Influence -Normative Influence -Interpersonal Influence • Application: Understanding Juries -Jury Dynamics - Improving Juries -How effective are juries?
  •  Much of the influence flows from the group to the individual.  When the majority of the group’s members champion a particular view, they may pressure the few dissenting group members to change for the sake of the group’s unity.  However, social influence also flows from the individual to the group.  If the group is to meet new challenges and improve over time, it must recognize and accept ideas that conflict with the status quo.
  •  Muzafer Sherif – verified that group members modify their judgments so that they can match those of others in their groups.  Theodore Newcomb – in his 1943 study of Bennington students, showed that members of a group will gradually take as their own the group’s position on political and social issues.  Solomon Asch – most clearly demonstrated the power of the many to influence the few.
  •  Results of Asch’s Study of Conformity MEASURE RESULT (%) How many members made at least one error? 76.4 How many times did the average member conform? 36.8 How many group members never conformed? 24.0 How many group members conformed 10 times or more? 11.0 How many individuals made at least one error when tested alone? 5.0
  • ALL AGAINST ONE  Individuals who face the majority alone, without a single ally, bear 100% of the groups’ pressure.  Gaining a partner, however, helps one withstand the pressure to conform only as long as the partner remains supportive.
  •  If the partner reverts back to the majority position, then subjects do as well.  The larger the size of the minority coalition, the smaller the majority’s coalition.  A partner makes a very embarrassing situation less so.  Most participants probably realized that if they dissented, they would make an odd impression on others.
  •  Cruthfield’s studies of individuals making decisions as a group but connected only electronically anticipated the use of computer – based networks to facilitate group interaction.  SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF DEINDIVIDUALIZATION (SIDE)
  • Conversion Theory of Minority Influence  influence through validation process “MINORITIES tend to produce profound and lasting changes in attitudes and perceptions that generalize to new settings over time…”
  •  Consistency and Influence -A consistent minority is an influential one  Idiosyncrasy Credits -Positive impressions of a person held by others, whether defined in the narrower terms of a small face-to-face group or a larger social entity (Edwin Hollander,1971)  Diligence of Dissenters -Lies on minorities argumentation  Decision Rules and Dissent
  • 1. Consolidation 2. Clustering 3. Correlation 4. Continuing diversity
  •  Informational Influence  Group members use responses of others in the group as reference points and informational resources  Ciandini’s Principle of Social Proof  People assume that a behavior is the correct one when they see others performing it SOCIAL COMPARISON - assumes that group members as active information processors, evaluate the accuracy of their beliefs and gauge the quality of their personal attributes by comparing themselves to others. DUAL PROCESS APPROACHES 1. Direct Processes – systematic (thoughtful analysis, elaboration of issues) 2. Indirect Processes – heuristic (do not acquire very much mental effort)
  •  NORMATIVE INFLUENCE -Causes members to feel, think, and act in ways that are consistent with the group’s norms -Generates conformity in a range of everyday situations Dissonance Theory - focused on how people respond when they hold two inconsistent cognitions  INTERPERSONAL INFLUENCE - verbal and nonverbal tactics (e.g. complaining, demanding..) - Stanley Schachter
  •  Jury Dynamics  the jury situation is designed to foster careful decision making and tolerance for all viewpoints, but at its core, jury is a GROUP  Jury’s final decisions also depends on SOCIAL INFLUENCE  Chicago Jury Project (1950s)  one of the first attempts to study systematically how juries carry out their responsibilities  Juries Approach to Deliberations  Verdict-driven  Reaching a decision before deliberation  Evidence- driven  Resists making final decision until all available evidences are reviewed
  •  Minority Influences in Juries  Minorities are NOT POWERLESS  They can convince MAJORITY to change (1 trial out of every 10)  “hung jury”  Status and Influence  Jurors with high status are more dominant and influencial  High status members also tend to participate more frequently  Women and racial minorities joined infrequently in discussions than men  Well-educated also prevailed
  •  Jury Effectiveness  Jurors take their role very seriously  They do well when compared with judges’ decision  They are hardly unbiased, rational weighers of evidence  Jury Size  Group structure  Representativeness  Majority Influence  Unanimity  Procedural Innovations  Voir Dire- “to speak truly”