Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Method Moscovici Haslam I 95
Method/Moscovici: In their afterimage studies Moscovici and Personnaz (1980)(1) had the novel idea of setting out to show that, in contrast to a majority, a numerical minority could change the way people see the world (in this case colours) even though they would be unaware of this change.
Haslam I 94
(Moscovici et al. 1969(2)): In these ‘blue-green’ experiments, groups of up to six naïve participants sat in front of a screen and viewed a series of blue slides that varied in their light intensity. After each slide, each participant was asked, in turn, to name aloud the colour of that slide. When all the participants had named the colour of the slide, the next slide was presented. Under these conditions, virtually everybody called the slides ‘blue’, showing that they were perceived as being unambiguously blue. However, in some experimental conditions, a numerical minority within the group (two of the six group members) were confederates of the experimenter and gave pre-agreed responses. In this case they replied ‘green’ to the slides – a response that was clearly different from that of the naïve participants.
Through the use of a clever methodological technique, the afterimage studies were able to examine people’s perceptions of colours beyond what they publicly said but at a more latent and unconscious level.
Haslam I 96
Problem: these studies were unable to examine the impact of the minority on a more latent/private level of influence. This is because only one type of response was measured, namely the slide colour (manifest influence), and no measure of latent influence was taken. Critically, then, such studies cannot tell us whether participants’ private judgments were also affected by the minority.
Haslam I 97
Afterimage/experiment/Moscovici: (Moscovici and Personnaz (1980)(1)) The afterimage judgment was obtained by participants viewing a white screen, after looking at the blue slide, on which an afterimage briefly developed. Afterimage responses were recorded on a nine-point scale (1 = yellow, 2 = yellow/orange, 3 = orange, 4 = orange/red, 5 = red, 6 = red/pink, 7 = pink, 8 = pink/purple, 9 = purple). In fact, the same slide, which was unambiguously blue, was used throughout the experiment. The experiment had four phases, with each phase consisting of a number of trials or presentations of a slide. Gender/Moscovici: Moscovici argued that he preferred to use women as confederates and participants in his blue-green studies ‘because of their greater involvement in evaluating the colour of an object’ (Moscovici et al., 1969(2): 368).
Haslam I 102
VsMoscovici: no evidence has been found for influence at the manifest or public level.
Haslam I 103
Most studies (> href="https://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=2162428&a=$a&first_name=&author=Psychological%20Theories&concept=Moscovici">Moscovici/Psychological theories) report that on only very few occasions do participants agree with the confederate that the slide is green. However, it should be noted that the paradigm was primarily designed to examine latent/private influence, and there is robust support from other research that majorities have a greater impact on the manifest/public level (Martin and Hewstone, 2008)(3).
1. Moscovici, S. and Personnaz, B. (1980) ‘Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 270–82.
2. Moscovici, S., Lage, E. and Naffrechoux, M. (1969) ‘Influence of a consistent minority on the response of a majority in a color perception task’, Sociometry, 32: 365–80.
3. Martin, R. and Hewstone, M. (2008) ‘Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The Source-Context-Elaboration Model’, in M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 237–326.


Robin Martin and Miles Hewstone, “Minority Influence. Revisiting Moscovici’s blue-green afterimage studies”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017
Moscovici Psychological Theories Haslam I 101
Moscovici/psychological theories: the afterimage studies by Moscovici and Personnaz (1980)(1) was criticized for several reasons. >Experiment/Moscovici, >Social influence/Moscovici, >Minorites/Moscovici, >Conversion theory/Moscovici.
1. VsMoscovici: Machteld Doms and Eddy Van Avermaet (1980)(2) found afterimage shifts towards the complementary colour of green for both a majority and minority. These researchers also included a ‘no information’ condition in which the confederate called the slides ‘green’ but no feedback (percentage) information was given (i.e., the confederate’s responses were not linked to a majority or minority position). Interestingly, there was no shift in afterimages across the phases in the no-information condition.
Explanation/Doms/Avermaet: the shifts might be part of a general tendency to pay closer attention to stimuli when a response is unexpected or unusual.
Haslam I 102
2. VsMoscovici: Richard Sorrentino and colleagues (1980)(3) examined only minority influence. After their study they asked participants to rate how suspicious they were of the experimental procedure. Interestingly, they found afterimage shifts towards the complementary colour of green only for those participants who were highly suspicious of the experiment (see also Martin, 1998)(4). Explanation/Sorrentino: highly suspicious participants may stare more intensely at the stimulus than unsuspicious participants do, and that the shift in afterimages may be due to this greater attention to the stimulus.
3. VsMoscovici: Martin (1998(4), 1995(5)) draw attention to the fact that all the afterimage studies analyse changes in the overall afterimage response between each phase of the experiment but do not examine changes within each phase. Across five afterimage experiments, Martin (1998)(4) found a significant within-phase shift in afterimage judgments in all the phases (see also Laurens and Moscovici, 2005)(5), an effect that was more pronounced for participants who reported being suspicious of the study. This effect indicated that participants’ afterimage judgments shifted towards the complementary colour of green (i.e., red) over progressive trials within each phase of the experiment (see also Laurens and Moscovici, 2005)(5).
Explanation/Martin: it may be due to a perceptual phenomenon that arises from repeated exposure to the same stimulus in the context of afterimage methodology.
Haslam I 103
4. VsMoscivoci: Sorrentino and his colleagues (1980)(3) have criticized the afterimage judgment scale employed by Moscovici and Personnaz (1980)(1) in terms of the labels it employed (see also Laurens, 2001)(5). In their variant, they instead asked participants to select a coloured chip that best matched the colour they saw. No evidence of conversion due to minority influence was found with this method. Criteria/manifest/latent reponses: Martin and Hewstone (2001)(6) identified three important criteria that need to be satisfied in order to establish manifest and latent responses:
1) There needs to be a link between the manifest and latent response dimension, such that
Haslam I 104
change on the manifest response results in a corresponding change in the latent response (manifest–latent correspondence). 2) The relationship between the manifest and latent response should be consistent and insensitive to situational factors (manifest–latent consistency).
3) Participants should not be aware of the link between the manifest and latent responses, and ideally they should use different response codes (manifest–latent perceived independence).

1. Moscovici, S. and Personnaz, B. (1980) ‘Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 270–82.
2. Doms, M. and Van Avermaet, E. (1980) ‘Majority influence, minority influence and conversion behavior: A replication’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 283–92.
3. Sorrentino, R.M., King, G. and Leo, G. (1980) ‘The influence of the minority on perception: A note on a possible alternative explanation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16: 293–301.
4. Martin, R. (1998) ‘Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm: A series of attempted replications’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 1–26.
5. Laurens, S. and Moscovici, S. (2005) ‘The confederate’s and others’ self-conversion: A neglected phenomenon’, Journal of Social Psychology, 145: 191–207.
6. Martin, R. and Hewstone, M. (2008) ‘Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The Source-Context-Elaboration Model’, in M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 237–326.


Robin Martin and Miles Hewstone, “Minority Influence. Revisiting Moscovici’s blue-green afterimage studies”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications


Haslam I
S. Alexander Haslam
Joanne R. Smith
Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017


No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.