Conformity with a Minority
- Created by: Lizz Griffin
- Created on: 27-04-13 08:47
View mindmap
- Conformity
- Social identity theory
- Hogg (2003)
- Introduced the sense of belonging to a group
- Referent informational thoery: The importance of relationships and emotional ties within a group. Conform as gives a sense of belonging
- Self categorisation: We identify similarities with our 'in group' and see differences with the 'out group'
- Self categorisation: We identify similarities with our 'in group' and see differences with the 'out group'
- Research: Rohrer (1952) when asked a year later people still gave group answer rather than individual answer. Shows the power of group influence
- Hogg and Turner (1987): we only conform when the majority = in group
- Hogg (2003)
- Minority influence
- Mosovici (1969): 36 blue slides. Confederates consistent 8% Confederates inconsistent 1.25%
- Was critised for having low ecological validity
- Mosovici (1969): 36 blue slides. Confederates consistent 8% Confederates inconsistent 1.25%
- Clark (1998)Study one: varied counter evidence given. Minority much more convincing with evidence.
- Mosovici (1980) Built on Kelmans internalisation
- 1) exposed to contradictory information
- 2) this creates conflict which leads to close examination
- 3) could lead to conversion of the minorities viewpoint
- Power and status may be more influential than number
- Clark supports Mosovici
- Mosovici (1980) Built on Kelmans internalisation
- Clark (1999) Study two: Snowball effect. Pps were more likely to conform when 4-7 defectors
- Why people conform to the minority
- Conversion theory
- Mosovici (1980) Built on Kelmans internalisation
- 1) exposed to contradictory information
- 2) this creates conflict which leads to close examination
- 3) could lead to conversion of the minorities viewpoint
- Power and status may be more influential than number
- Clark supports Mosovici
- Mosovici (1980) Built on Kelmans internalisation
- Conversion theory
- Social Impact Theory (Latane and Wolfe)
- 'Sources' those who provide the influence. 'Targets' those who are influenced
- Impact depended on 3 factors.
- 1) Strength: Importance, status, power
- 2) Immediacy: physical, psychological, social distance.
- 3) number: people providing influence
- Evidence: Hart (1999) Strength vs immediacy (4 or 10 ft away)
- Strength has more of an effect but at 10 ft away
- Therefore immediacy more play an important part in minority influence
- Strength has more of an effect but at 10 ft away
- Social identity theory
Comments
No comments have yet been made