 |
 |
 |
Psychology of Communication: social influence
|
|||
|
Psychology of Communication: social influence
|
Many European researchers have been critical of American social psychology because of its emphasis on conformity and the influence of the majority. The results of American research suggest that individuals who do not conform to the dominant norms are simply deviant and by definition can have no influence. Clearly, though, if you look at Gamson's study, you can see how a minority of people (the 'rôle models') had an influence on group decisions.
According to Moscovici, one of the foremost critics of the American standpoint, the American researchers' view is obviously counter to historical reality. It is the have-nots, the outsiders, the oppressed, not the ruling élites who change society. Such change has often occurred because a minority converts others to its point of view.
Moscovici argues that cognitive dissonance is not of great importance in the influence process. The drive to reduce disharmony from amongst our attitudes, beliefs and values is less important than the drive to reduce social conflict. It is social conflict and disagreement with others that creates discomfort and we try to avoid that by normalising and conforming, in other words by reaching agreements through influence.
The minority can create social conflict, they can create doubt and uncertainty, they can refuse to reach a compromise with others. They can produce a situation where the only way to reduce the social conflict is for the majority to move to their point of view. Moscovici conducted a re-run of Aschs experiment, but in reverse. Instead of one subject amongst a majority of confederates, he placed two confederates together with four genuine subjects. This minority was able to influence about 32% of the subjects to make at least one incorrect judgement about the colour of slides they were shown.
This and other studies by Moscovici and others appear to demonstrate that the minority can influence the majority if:
Social Influence Turner (1991)
Moreover, Moscovici's studies appear to show that the shift in opinion brought about by minority influence is more enduring than that brought about by majority influence:
A minority .... can ... influence subjects to revise the very basis of their judgements, while a majority can make them almost all accept its point of view, if it is unanimous, without affecting the underlying perceptual-cognitive system. In other words, majority influence works on the surface while minority influence has deep-lying effects.
Studies in Social Influence III, Moscovici and Lage 1978 in European Journal of Social Psychology 8 quoted in Turner (1991)
In other words Moscovici is saying that a majority can certainly bring about compliance, i.e. people go along with what the majority want, but they don't necessarily believe in it. A minority on the other hand can bring about internalization, i.e. the individuals affected actually 'believe in' the minority's values.
Well, that may be the case in experimental studies - how does it work out in practice? In one study (quoted in Atkinson et al
(1990)) groups of subjects were asked to read a summary of a discussion on gay rights supposedly held by five students like themselves. In all cases four of the discussion group had favoured one position and one had favoured the opposite position. After reading the discussion, the subjects publicly voiced agreement with the majority view - regardless of whether it had been for or against gay rights. However, when they were asked to write down their views, it was apparent that their attitudes had shifted towards the minority view. This suggests that majorities have the power to give or withhold social approval. It is this power which determines our compliance with the majority. On the other hand minorities do not have such social power, but they do have the power to produce internalization of their views, an internalization which may ultimately result in major social change.
Does that strike you as being an accurate reflection of what really happens? Why aren't we all Greens then, or CND members or British National Party members? There are all sorts of reasons of course, not least of which is the barrier of the British electoral system, but it's always difficult to see at any given moment which minority movements, if any, are going to win out. With the benefit of hindsight, though, it is clear that many of what were originally minority movements have achieved major influence on the shape of our society, even though in terms of their 'formal' membership they may still be 'minority' movements - Christianity, Methodism, Marxism, trade unionism, feminism, Thatcherism and so on. Much of the interest in the work of Asch, Milgram and others is due to our desire for an explanation of how ordinary, decent people turned out to be Nazi butchers. But the tendency there is to look at how the Nazi state influenced the population. At some point, though, the Nazis were a minority - Moscovici seems to offer a very convincing explanation of how they came to achieve their dominant position.
It is possible to see how the Nazis used all of the tactics Moscovici lists. They ran their own newspaper before they took over power, but they were also particularly successful in gaining attention from other news media. In today's society, too, one of the keys to success must be to gain media attention. That can be done by capitalising on the news values the media rely on. It doesn't matter greatly in the first place whether media coverage is positive or negative. The point is to seize attention and keep it.
Moscovici's argument that minorities can be successful by consistent dissent seems to be supported by experiments and by our experience of the real world. However, Hollander presents a rather different strategy. What he suggests is that the minority should initially conform. In that way they gather brownie points (he uses the term 'idiosyncrasy points') with the majority which they can later cash in at a critical point, using the points they have gathered to exert influence over the majority. Hollander's and Moscovici's different approaches were tested in an experiment by Bray, Johnson and Chilstrom (Baron & Byrne ( 1984)). The results show that both approaches work. Intriguingly, the Hollander approach appears to be more successful with males, whereas with females, both strategies seem to be equally effective.
Conformity
Deindividuation
Diffusion of responsibility
Obedience
Rebellion
Power of social rôles
Conflict resolution
Groups and Teams
Mass Media Effects Research
Political Propaganda and Persuasion
|