chap 8

Conformity

Conformity

any change in behavior as a result of implicit social influence, real or imagined

• Candid camera elevator example

• Walking down the hall on the right side

Information social influence

 relying on others for accurate knowledge and cues to appropriate behavior

• The importance of being accurate

• influence when ambiguous, crisis, others are experts

Normative Influence

when the influence of other people leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted -> results in public compliance, not private acceptance

Study: Asch (normative influence)

Procedure:

• Ppl come into lab for a study on perception… but arrive last

• Seating arrangement of majority and critical subject

Results:

• 76% conform

  • 33% conformed 1-3 times and 43% conformed 4 or more times

Minority Influence will sway majorities if

1. majority is unsure about position 

2. minority is consistent and unwavering in position

Compliance

behavior change as the result of a direct request

Reciprocity

 if someone does something for you, it creates an expectation that you will repay those actions in kind

Why do people conform?

• Don’t know what to do in a confusion/abnormal situation

• Sought social approval/didn’t want to be ridiculed/punished for being different

Study: Sherif (informational social influence)

Procedure:

• First phase: Focus on dot of light 15 ft away in dark room, notices it moves a little, 2 inches, disappears comes back, 4 inches (in reality no change) - autokinetic effect

• Second phase: participants paired with other people - converged on common estimate 

Results:

• People were using each other as a source of info

• When repeated alone, kept same answer as group

informational social influence can lead to ______

private acceptance

Private acceptance

when people conform to the behaviors of others because they genuinely believe that these other people are right

Public compliance

conforming publicly without necessarily believing in what the group is doing

Study: Normative influence

Procedure:

• Eyewitness identification, just like I Witnessed of a real crime the participants were asked to pick a perpetrator out of a lineup, though in this instance they were asked to do it several times. for each of the 13 lineups, the participants were first shown a slide of a man - the perpetrator. next, they saw a lineup composed of four men, one of whom was the perpetrator parentheses he was sometimes dressed differently than he had been in the previous side. the participants job was to pick him out. the task was made difficult by presenting the slides extremely quickly. 

• The researchers manipulated how accurate they were supposed to be

  •  in the high importance condition 

  • Low importance condition

Results: 

• Being motivated to get things right make syou more susceptible to information social influence

• In low-importance condition, participants conformed to judgements 35%, in high, 51%

Social norms

 implicit rules for acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs

• Groups have certain expectations on how their members should behave

What is a predictor of what goes viral?

Emotional arousal and “doing good”

Why is normative conformity so powerful?

We want acceptance, we are social beings

Hikikomori

teenagers who have withdrawn from all social interaction because they were perceived as different, experienced severe bullying

What kind of activation occurs with conforming?

When participants conformed to the groups wrong answers, activation occurred in the same area semicolon however, when participants chose to give the right answer and thus disagree with the groups unanimous wrong answer, the visual/perceptual areas of the brain were not activated. instead, different areas of the brain became more active, in particular the amygdala -> negative emotional states and modulating social behavior

Findings of the power of normative social influence?

Even when the group is wrong, the right answer is obvious, and there are strong incentives to be accurate, some people still find it difficult to risk social disapproval

• In eyewitness study, less high importance ppl conformed than low importance

What is one way to observe the power of normative social pressure?

Examine the consequences when people manage to resist it

Social Impact theory

the likelihood you will respond to social influence depends on 

1. Strength - how important is the group to you? More important more conform

2. Immediacy - how close is the group to you in space and time - closer the group -> increase conform

3. Number - how many people in group? As size group increase -> increase in pressure

I.e. - gay men in communities highly invovled in AIDS awareness (where strength, immediacy, and number would be high) they report feeling more social pressure to avoid risky sexual behavior

Strength: when are normative pressures stronger?

When they come from people whose friendship, love and respect we cherish

Idosyncrasy credits

the act of conforming normatively to important groups most of the time can earn you the right to deviate occasionally without serious consequences

Japanese conformity

cooperation and loyalty are directed to the groups to which one belongs and with which one identifies; there is little expectation that one should conform to the behavior of strangers, especially in such an artificial setting as a psych experiment

Collectivist culture conformity

higher rates of conformity on the line task than participants from more individualistic cultures

• Seen as valued trait

• Agree with others is viewed as tact and sensitivity not act of submission

• Promotes harmony and supportive relationships

Minority Influence

an individual or minority of group members can indeed influence the behavior or beliefs of the majority

• Key is CONSISTENCY: must express same views over time

• If minority wavers between two viewpoints -> majority dismisses them as inconsistent and groundless opinions

By informational social influence rather than normative influence (majority)

Injunctive Norms

what we think other people approve or disapprove of

• Motivate by rewards for normative behavior

• What people should do in a given situation (litter vs not litter)

• More powerful than descriptive norms in producing desirable behavior

• Good predictors of behavior

Descriptive Norms

our perceptions of the way people actually behave in a given situation, whether or not behavior is approved or disapproved by others

• Motivate by informing ppl abt what is effective behavior

“Boomerang Effect”

using norms and backfiring

• To decrease student drinking colleges say that students only drink X amount per week

• Those that don’t drink may feel the need to increase intake to be more like everyone else

Different types of people receiving message about conforming?

Above average - whom you want to convince to decrease the behavior

Below average - whom you want to continue doing what they’re doing rather than to boomerang by increasing the undesirable behavior

Study: Schultz (boomerang effect)

Procedure: 

• Energy consumption

• Divide into two groups - above neighborhood average and below average

• Two conditions: Descriptive norm and Descriptive norm+injunctive norm condition

  • Descriptive norm - told how much energy they used that week - told how much energy average - suggestions given

  • Descriptive norm+injunctive norm - received above info plus if they had consumed less energy than average household, researcher drew smiley face(injunctive)

Results:

• Descriptive norm = had positive effect on those who consumed more energy than average, they cut back and conserved

  • Descriptive norm message had boomerang effect on those who consumed less, once learning what their nerighbors were doing, they felt liberated to increase their own usage

• Descriptive norm+injunctive norm -> more than average decreased usage

  • Below average maintained same, low level of energy - smiley face reminded them they were doing the right thing

Foot-in-the-door technique

 increase in compliance with a smaller request 

• Ppl start to see themselves as agreeable

• Captizilizes on people’s desire for self-consistency

Door-in-the-face technique

 initially ask them for a much larger commitment, one to which they’ll say no

• Bigger request makes the second “ask” less daunting -> meet you halway

Example:

• Spend 2 hours chaperoning at zoo- 17%

• First asked to volunteer every week for min of 2 years, then 2-hour zoo trip 50% agreed

Propaganda

the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist

• Most powerful when it taps into pre-existing beliefs 

• Influenced through both informational (false facts)and normative (rejection, torture motivators)

Obedience to authority

must adhere to rules and laws even when the authority figure isn’t present

Milgram Study:

Procedure: 

• One person play role as teacher, one play role as student

• Electric shock to student whenever mistake made, with more mistakes you get increasing the voltage

• You ask experimenter what to do because student is in pain, experimenter says you must continue

Results:

• Most of participants succumbed to the pressure of the authority figure

• 62.5% of people went to the 450 shock

• 80% of people continued shocks even after student talked about heat condition “leat me out”

Demonstrated:

• It is difficult ot say no, especially true if person is authority

• Informational social influence -> In a state of conflict -> natural for ppl to follow expert

Redone study of Milgram:

Teacher and students, once one student refused to continue administering shocks, others found it easier to disobey as well

When the authorities definition of the situation becomes _____, the participants broke out of their ______ role

unclear, obedience

Continued obedience because of?

• Initiated with an obey authrotiy and then revealed how he planned to use his authority

• Fast paced, prevented participants from stopping to reflect

• Self justification - did not go from 0 to 100, in increments so at each level they had to justify it -> quitting would have produced dissonance

• Loss of personal responsibility - “just following orders”

Execution-team guards vs Regular prison guards

Execution denied all personal responsibility - dehumanizing the prisoners and just implementing orders

Issues with Milgrans study?

• Deception

• not fully informed consent

• Psychological distress

• It was not made clear ppl had right to withdrawal

• Inflicted insight - learned unpleasant things about themselves

Principle of Reciprocal Concessions (door-in-the-face)

in negotiation situations, concessions by one party should be met with concessions from the other