1.1.13

Minority Influence & Social Impact Theory

Test yourself

Social Impact Theory

Latané and Wolf (1981) developed the social impact theory. This theory states that three factors cause social impact when combined in sufficient measure.

Illustrative background for Three factors causing social impactIllustrative background for Three factors causing social impact ?? "content

Three factors causing social impact

  • People change their behaviour if they're put under enough pressure. This is called social impact. Social impact is made up of:
    • Immediacy: how recent or physically close the source of pressure is.
    • Numbers: the size of the group applying pressure.
    • Strength: how powerful the person/group applying pressure is.
  • Social impact happens when the combined effect of these three factors is strong enough.
Illustrative background for Minority influenceIllustrative background for Minority influence ?? "content

Minority influence

  • According to the theory, minorities can cause social impact through a difference balance of factors to majorities.
    • Minority groups are fewer in number than majority groups. But they can still cause social impact if they have enough strength and immediacy.
Illustrative background for Support and criticismIllustrative background for Support and criticism ?? "content

Support and criticism

  • Sedikides and Jackson (1990) conducted a field experiment in the bird house at a zoo which supported Latané and Wolf's findings.
  • Mullen (1985) analysed data from social impact theory studies. He criticised many for focusing on self report instead of observable behaviour.

Moscovici et al. (1969)

Moscovici et al. (1969) observed consistent and inconsistent behavioural styles on minority influence in a colour study.

Illustrative background for MethodIllustrative background for Method ?? "content

Method

  • Laboratory experiment.
  • 192 female participants.
  • The women were split into groups of six with two confederates per group. There was one control group with no confederates.
  • Groups were asked to identify the colour of 36 slides. All were different shades of blue.
    • The consistent confederates identified all 36 slides as green.
    • The inconsistent confederates identified 12 slides as blue and the other 24 as green.
Illustrative background for ResultsIllustrative background for Results ?? "content

Results

  • Groups with consistent confederates - 32% of natural participants identified at least one slide as green. Around 8% of the time, participants identified slides as green.
  • Groups with inconsistent confederates - around 1% of the time, participants identified slides as green.
  • Control group - around 0.25% of the time, participants identified slides as green.
Illustrative background for ConclusionIllustrative background for Conclusion ?? "content

Conclusion

  • Minority groups had more influence when they behaved consistently rather than inconsistently.
Illustrative background for AnalysisIllustrative background for Analysis ?? "content

Analysis

  • Pros:
    • Control group result - proves that the minority groups had influence.
  • Cons:
    • Low ecological validity (cannot be generalised well) - because participants were in an artificial situation.
    • Low generalisability - female participants only.
Illustrative background for Additional experimentIllustrative background for Additional experiment ?? "content

Additional experiment

  • In another experiment, participants didn't have to announce the colour aloud. They wrote the colour down.
  • In this experiment, even more participants adopted the minority view.
  • This further backs the theory on minority influence.

Nemeth et al. (1974)

Nemeth et al. (1974) carried out a variation on Moscovici et al. (1969) experiment. They allowed participants to answer with a combination of colours rather than just a single colour.

Illustrative background for MethodIllustrative background for Method ?? "content

Method

  • Two confederates per group.
  • The three conditions were:
    • The confederates identified every slide as green.
    • The confederates identified darker slides as green and brighter slides as green-blue.
    • The confederates randomly identified slides as green or green-blue.
Illustrative background for ResultsIllustrative background for Results ?? "content

Results

  • Inconsistent behaviour (e.g. the confederates identifying colours randomly) did not influence participants.
  • The confederates who identified every slide as green did not influence participants.
  • The confederates who identified darker and brighter slides as green and green-blue respectively had a significant influence on participants.
Illustrative background for ConclusionIllustrative background for Conclusion ?? "content

Conclusion

  • Strict consistency (identifying every slide as green) was not effective. The confederates' responses seemed implausible when they could answer with a combination of colours instead of one.
  • Flexible consistency (identifying darker and brighter slides differently) was the most effective.

Jump to other topics

1Social Influence

2Memory

3Attachment

4Psychopathology

5Approaches in Psychology

6Biopsychology

7Research Methods

8Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

9Option 1: Relationships (A2 only)

10Option 1: Gender (A2 only)

11Option 1: Cognition & Development (A2 only)

12Option 2: Schizophrenia (A2 only)

13Option 2: Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

14Option 2: Stress (A2 only)

15Option 3: Aggression (A2 only)

16Option 3: Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

17Option 3: Addiction (A2 only)

Go student ad image

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

  • Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

  • Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

  • 30+ school subjects covered

Book a free trial lesson