Groups as imperfection decision makers - Imhoff & Erb (2009) what motivates nonconformity? Uniqueness seeking blocks majority influence

8 important questions on Groups as imperfection decision makers - Imhoff & Erb (2009) what motivates nonconformity? Uniqueness seeking blocks majority influence

Why this research? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

If a certain condition can make the majority option unattractive, it should lead to less agreement with the majority option.
RQ: what condition can make the majority option unattractive? The propose the Need for Uniqueness (NfU) is one such condition.
according to Imhoff & Erb (2009) NfU is a psychological state in which individuals feel indistinguishable from others motivates compensatory acts to reestablesh a sence of uniqueness.

What can you tell about NfU and Social influence? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

The uniqueness theory of Snyder and Fromkin (1980): People find high levels of simularity and dissimilarity unpleasant.
relationship between NfU and consumption products: Consumers preferences, desires for innovative and customized products are related to consumers' need for uniqueness.

What is study 1? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

expectation: if a certain condition can make high consensus unattractive, it should lead to less agreement with the majority option, whereas agreement with the respective minority position should not be reduced.
Dining cars on German railways should be disestablished: majority consensus condition 79% agreed, minority consesus condition 21% agreed.
dependent measure: consensus attitude.
significant interaction effect (NfU x consensus condition).
no significant main effect
majority was less influental under high NfU.
problems with NfU scores, low reliability.
NfU= individual trait and temporary motivation.
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

What is study 2? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

expectation: manipulating NfU by bogus feedback would affect social influence consistent with our reasoning.
32 item questionaire to measure 4 central personality features.
computer valued ech personal value on a scale
participants had to copy these values down
experimenter commented about average score to each high NfU participant
no comment was made to control participants.
results: significant two way interaction effect
no significant main effects.
majority was less influental under high NfU than in control condition.
no other effects were observed to be significant.

What is study 3? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

expectation: no negative effect of high NfU on majority influence if participants have an opportunity to regain uniqueness throug alternative means.
name 3 aspects that make you different of others.
two way between subjects Anova (2x3)
significant two way interaction effect
no significant main effect
the majority was less influential in the hight NfU condition than in either the control or regain uniqueness condition.

What is the conclusion? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

Central hypothesis of this study was confirmed. they found the predicted interaction of NfU by consensus on attitude judgements.

What were the strenghts of this study Imhoff & Erb (2009)

theoretical motivation and idea
repeated experiments showed some amount of robustness for their proposed effects.

What is the critique or the weaknesses of this study? Imhoff & Erb (2009)

manipulation check
setting up of consensus conditions: can an opinion poll really exert minority influence?
between subject design, but what about individual personality differences across the different groups?
participants are students, do students show more susceptibility to NfU?

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo