|
|



2 Satisfy survival, psychological,
informational, & identity needs
2 Structure of small groups ± norms; roles,
status systems
2 How individual¶s thoughts, feelings &
actions are influenced by being part of a
group; how individuals can affect groups
 




   

 




2 Ôncidental groups - minimal group paradigm (workshop at a

conference)
2 Membership groups - defined by being a member
(committee, club)
2 Ôdentity-reference groups ± affiliation acts as a reference
frame for social identity (religious community, political
affiliation)

People in individual interaction with each other - - - People

acting as a group





     


   







 

   









  !
 



 



!
 




"


2 Social loafing = experimental artefact of creating
incidental groups (low commitment, meaningless
tasks), not a universal quality of task performance
in a group

2 Groups that have (collectivist), or are motivated to

develop, cohesiveness, commitment, & work on
worthwhile task, social energising more likely
Ôdentity-reference groups
2 Shift from personal to social identity
2 Becomes in-group, encourages
cooperation & conflict with outgroups

2 Summer Camp experiments (Sherif et al.

1961).
hite middle class 11-12 year old boys at
summer camp
4 phases:
2 Spontaneous friendship formation

2 Ôngroup formation (2 groups formed, kept separate)

2 Ôntergroup competition (placed in competitive

situations)
2 Ôntergroup cooperation (create superordinate goals
achieved only through intergroup cooperation)
£


2  llport 1924 groups tend to give more
conservative judgments than individuals
2 Sherif 1936 autokinetic effect
2  sch¶s studies (1951)

Group norms ± shared standard of conduct

expected of group members
Garfinkel 1967 students behave as lodgers
Festinger 1954 Social Comparison theory
G
  
 sch: majority influence ± many factors but
most important = being only dissenter in
group. Effect extinguished where subject
has even one supporter.

So easier to resist if not µodd one out¶;

But can you persuade others to move to your
position?
G

 



 
 

(groups of 6, incl. 2 stooges, blue/green
slides)
Some members of majority can be
persuaded by small minority ÔF their
judgments are consistent

 lso important how behaviour of minority is

interpreted.
X
 



2 
!  




# 


2 $  


2 %






2 $


&

 


G
#&  


2 
#

'


 







2 
#&(
 )
*+,-.



 

 

2 &G
/-.
0-.
 

*' 




1





1

G 

2 2
1

   & X*+304
%




& 



2   # 5
#&  

  %
  


2  
! 
&





#&

  

 
21

G 

Moscovici¶s Ônnovation Model ± based on social

representations (how new ideas of original thinkers
come to influence the images, thinking, vocabulary &
beliefs of ordinary people)

Majority influence operates through conformity &

normalization, passive heuristic processing
Minority, through a discrete process of innovation, direct
processing effort ± consistency is key ± sustained
attempt to exert information influence (real-life pressure
groups -  mnesty Ônt, Greenpeace)
X.
6
 *++*


 

 & &
7 4
 


    )





 &
 
  

 )








 

!
  




 

 

  

&

2 (  



6

 





 
 

 

 
!

8  

 

4
    
'



.

 
  



9  



:;

)
2 
  
  

(




 :
!&
)*+/*
2 


' 

4  

 


 &

&

' 

&
  


 &
&  ;

 &
 


 

&


 
' 


2 1




' 

4 




  

 




  


 


 &

&
  



&
 ' 


2 ; ' 


 
&

"  !<

*+0**+3= 




! 



&


2 & 
  !
2 


2 
  

2 

 & 



2 6

    !  


&

    
& <


 
  %>X 
 

  
   &
2 ?& 9  

@A


8 (




8 X






! 
 




8 X & B *+/0*+03   




 








8  
 


 
&
8  


! 





 
& 

!
2 E.g., jury foreperson±perceived as leader, it is usually men of
higher SES (socio-economic status), might influence the verdict,
although evidence is mixed here.
@( 

4$2<
G
!2


G
 



 


 ±
a small minority may influence the majority vote by conversion, if they are consistent, committed in their opinions and
arguments, seem to be acting on principle rather than out of self-gain and incur some cost, as well as are not overly
rigid and unreasonable in their opinions and arguments.

  




 
  

±
jurors have usually decided on a verdict before they retire to deliberate and jury deliberation consists merely of trying to
persuade others to the same opinion. Social group pressure may thus lead to illogical decisions for a number of
reasons:

2    
± a group tends to make more extreme decisions (either riskier or more cautious) through a
process of social comparison and increasing conformity to the group¶s initial majority decision;

2 
 ± group pressure to agree with majority verdicts may result in a lack of consideration for alternative,
minority opinions. This can be both informational (uncertainty over the verdict) and normative (need to be socially
approved). The pressure may increase with the severity of the crime, the need for a majority rather than unanimous
verdict (whoever cares about one or two dissidents then...), and the size of the jury (1 against 5 people resists less
than 2 against 10 people ± see  sch);

2 | 
± esp. in a cohesive and isolated group, dominated by a directive leader ± e.g. confirmatory bias ± not
equally considering evidence against their joint beliefs;

2  
± individuals in the jury may be inclined to deliberate less that they would alone and let others think
for them.
â
 

4
"  3  + $  @



"
 

4
Pheonix,  . (2007) Chapter 5 Ôntragroup processes: Entitativity. Ôn D.
Langdridge & S. Taylor (Eds.). £

 


 

 
. OUP.

!
 @ *++/   !4 (   

 


& &  "
X
 B " & 6 
 $ #!   A! *
 1

X 
 1
& & >
4 "

1

B

  ;  "  3