Chapter 7: Conformity and Obedience

Social influence

effects of other people on beliefs attitudes values and behavior across the lifespan shaping how individuals think feel and act

Learning from others social learning theory (Albert Bandura)

people learn by observing models and imitation influenced by rewards punishments similarity and liking

Bandura Bobo doll study (Albert Bandura)

children imitated aggressive behavior especially when the model was rewarded and similar or likable

Chameleon effect (Tanya Chartrand John Bargh)

unconscious mimicry of others nonverbal behavior especially when the interaction partner is liked

Attitude mimicry (Sinclair et al)

people shift implicit attitudes toward those of a likable person to facilitate social connection

Social priming (Bushman Robert Cialdini)

exposure to behaviors or norms makes related ideas more accessible and influences actions automatically

Injunctive vs descriptive norms (Robert Cialdini)

injunctive norms are beliefs about what is approved while descriptive norms are beliefs about what most people do

Norm conflict Petrified Forest study (Robert Cialdini et al)

emphasizing descriptive norms of bad behavior can increase it while injunctive norms reduce it

Social contagion (Gustave Le Bon Christakis Fowler)

ideas emotions and behaviors spread across people such as happiness yawning or obesity

Mass psychogenic illness (Jones et al)

shared belief in illness leads to real symptoms without physical cause spreading through groups

Social construction of reality (Peter Berger Thomas Luckmann)

cultural learning shapes beliefs values and perceptions so reality is socially constructed

Culturally defined situations (Aarts Dijksterhuis)

contexts automatically activate norms such as silence in libraries influencing behavior without awareness

Nonconformists and norm activation (Aarts et al)

individuals low in motivation to fit in show weaker automatic activation of social norms

Social roles Stanford prison experiment (Philip Zimbardo Haney et al)

assigned roles of guard and prisoner led to extreme behavior changes due to situational power

Conformity definition (Muzafer Sherif Solomon Asch)

altering beliefs attitudes or behavior to match a majority

Autokinetic effect (Muzafer Sherif)

ambiguous moving light illusion used to show group norms form through informational influence

Informational influence (Muzafer Sherif)

people conform because others provide information leading to private acceptance and genuine belief change

Normative influence (Solomon Asch)

people conform to fit in and avoid rejection even when they know the group is wrong leading to public compliance

Public compliance vs private acceptance (Solomon Asch Rohrer et al)

compliance is outward conformity without belief change while acceptance involves internal belief change

Factors affecting conformity (Solomon Asch Stanley Milgram Theodore Newcomb)

conformity increases with group size unanimity and identification with a reference group but decreases with dissent and high self esteem

Social Learning REVIEW

• We learn to do something new from watching others model the behavior.

• We unconsciously tend to mimic the nonverbal mannerisms of others.

• We also shift our attitudes toward those of people we like.

Social Priming REVIEW

• Reminders of norms and values can influence behavior.

• Injunctive norms and descriptive norms can have different influences on behavior.

Social Contagion

Ideas, feelings, and behaviors can spread among people like wildfire

Social Construction

• Cultures prescribe particular norms for particular situations.

• These norms influence our behavior as the situation activates associated schemas.

• Similarly, our cultures teach us the generalized beliefs that accompany particular roles.

The Sherif and Asch Conformity Studies

People often conform to groups.

• They want to be right (informational influence).

• They want to fit in (normative influence)

Personality and Situational Influences

The people who are least likely to conform have:

• A high need for achievement

• Leadership qualities

• Confidence in their own judgment

• High self-esteem

Willingness to conform also depends on:

• The number of people in the group.

• Whether even one other person breaks from the majority view

• How strongly the individual relates to the larger group and the extent to which they are in a conforming mind-set

Neural Processes

fMRIs provide evidence that:

• People are more sensitive to peer opinion than to other kinds of information.

• Going against the group activates brain regions associated with detecting errors.

Minority influence definition (Serge Moscovici)

process by which dissenters or numerical minorities create attitude change despite risk of rejection

Moscovici color perception study (Serge Moscovici et al)

consistent minority saying blue slides were green influenced participants more than inconsistent minority

Conversion theory (Serge Moscovici)

minority positions attract attention and deeper processing leading to genuine attitude change unlike majority influence

Minority vs majority influence processing (Moscovici Crano Chen)

majority influence is often automatic and superficial while minority influence involves careful elaboration

Enduring attitudes from minority influence (Martin et al Petty Cacioppo)

minority persuasion leads to stronger longer lasting attitudes especially when issue relevance is low

Minority slowness effect (Bassili)

people holding minority opinions take longer to express them due to uncertainty and social risk

Creativity from minority influence (Mucchi Faina et al Nemeth)

exposure to minority viewpoints increases flexible thinking and generation of novel ideas

Increasing minority influence effectiveness (Moscovici Nemeth Maass)

minorities are more persuasive when consistent confident flexible gain defections and are seen as part of the ingroup

Minority influence in 12 Angry Men

One juror holds a dissenting position and gradually changes the majority illustrating minority influence through persistence and reasoning (Serge Moscovici)

Normative influence in jury voting (12AM)

Early jurors conform to the majority guilty verdict to avoid conflict and fit in rather than because of strong belief (Solomon Asch)

Informational influence in evidence evaluation (12AM)

Some jurors shift their verdict after carefully reconsidering evidence showing reliance on facts and logic rather than social pressure (Muzafer Sherif)

Consistency and confidence of the minority (12AM)

Henry Fonda character consistently and calmly argues for discussion which increases credibility and influence over time (Serge Moscovici)

Conversion theory in attitude change (12AM)

Minority position provokes deeper thinking leading to more enduring belief change compared to superficial majority agreement (Serge Moscovici)

Role of defection in reducing conformity pressure (12AM)

When one juror switches sides it weakens unanimity and makes it easier for others to dissent (Solomon Asch)

Identification and interpersonal connection (12AM)

Personal conversations increase liking and identification making others more open to minority influence (Maass and Clark)

Bias and motivated reasoning in social influence (12AM)

One juror interprets evidence through personal bias showing how attitudes and stereotypes shape perception and resistance to change (Lee J Cobb character example)

How Minorities Exert Influence

• The distinctiveness of the minority position captures attention and prompts deeper consideration. This can lead to lasting attitude change.

• Minorities are generally disliked, so those holding a minority position may take longer to express their opinions.

• The majority finds the minority position puzzling, which may lead to original thinking and diversified strategies in figuring out solutions.

Factors That Increase Minority Influence

• Minority advocates being consistent and confident yet flexible

• A defection from the majority

• The minority advocate being seen as part of the ingroup

Compliance definition and purpose

Compliance involves direct attempts to change behavior using strategies rather than implicit group pressure (Robert Cialdini)

Foot in the door effect

People are more likely to agree to a larger request after agreeing to a small request due to changes in self perception (Daryl Bem)

Self perception theory in compliance

People infer attitudes from their own behavior which increases consistency and future compliance (Daryl Bem)

Foot in the door evidence

Signing a small petition increased later volunteering showing behavior shapes self image and compliance (Burger and Caldwell)

Extrinsic rewards reducing compliance

When initial compliance is rewarded people attribute behavior externally and are less likely to comply later (Burger and Caldwell)

Norm for social commitment

People feel pressure to honor commitments especially when they are public which increases consistency in behavior (Robert Cialdini)

Lowballing technique

People agree to an offer and then accept added costs because they feel committed to the initial decision (Robert Cialdini)

Lowballing evidence study

Participants agreed to early morning study more when time was revealed after commitment showing power of commitment (Cialdini et al)

Foot in the door versus lowballing

Foot in the door changes self perception while lowballing relies on commitment to a specific agreement (Freedman and Fraser)

Reciprocity norm

People feel obligated to return favors which increases likelihood of compliance across cultures and situations (Robert Cialdini)

Reciprocity experiment

Participants bought more tickets when given a Coke by the requester showing obligation drives compliance not liking (Regan)

Door in the face effect

People are more likely to agree to a moderate request after refusing a large request due to perceived concession (Cialdini et al)

Social proof

People conform to what similar and respected others do using others as a guide for behavior (Robert Cialdini)

Scarcity principle

People value and desire things more when they are rare or limited due to perceived loss of freedom or value (Brehm)

Mindlessness in compliance

People rely on automatic scripts and comply with requests that seem to provide a reason even if the reason is meaningless (Ellen Langer)

The Foot-in-the-Door Effect and Lowballing

• People are more likely to comply with a moderate request after complying with a smaller one.

• People find it hard to break a deal even if they learn later of an extra cost because of the norm to honor commitments.

Reciprocity and Social Proof

• People are likely to reciprocate favors and concessions from others.

• Reciprocity contributes to the door-in-the-face effect of agreeing to a moderate request after refusing a larger one.

• People often choose behaviors that conform with what respected others are doing.

Mindlessness

• People may comply out of mindlessness.

• When a mindless tendency to refuse is interrupted, people may comply more because they become open to suggestion.

Variables That Influence Obedience

• Psychological distance from the authority

• Psychological closeness to the victim

• Witnessing defiance

• Not personally causing the harm

Who Obeys

• Obedience does not vary according to sex or nationality.

• Obedience is influenced by whether the participant has a submissive attitude.

• More recent research suggests that rates of obedience have not changed.

We Obey Because

• We evolved a propensity to follow those in power.

• We are socialized to obey authority.

• Small acts may escalate such that once an action is begun, we gradually become more and more committed to continuing.

• It is difficult to defy a legitimate authority.

The Role of Charisma

• When the prevailing worldview no longer provides members of society with compelling bases of meaning and self-worth, charismatic leaders are likely to gain followers.

• Reminders of mortality increase the appeal of charismatic leaders.

Obedience

An action engaged in to fulfill a direct order or command of another person (Milgram 1974)

Obedience to authority

A form of social influence where individuals follow explicit commands from perceived legitimate authority figures even when actions conflict with personal conscience (Milgram 1974)

Milgram obedience studies

A series of laboratory demonstrations showing that ordinary people will administer what they believe are harmful electric shocks to another person when instructed by an authority figure with high levels of obedience (Milgram 1963)

Agentic state theory

A state in which individuals view themselves as agents executing the wishes of an authority figure and therefore feel less personally responsible for their actions (Milgram 1974)

Baseline obedience rate

In Milgrams original study 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts despite believing they were harming another person (Milgram 1963)

Legitimacy of authority

A key determinant of obedience where obedience decreases when the authority figure or institution is perceived as less credible or prestigious (Milgram 1974)

Effect of physical proximity of authority

Obedience decreases when the authority figure is physically distant or indirect such as giving instructions by phone rather than in person (Milgram 1974)

Effect of victim proximity

Obedience decreases when the victim is more psychologically or physically close such as being in the same room or requiring direct physical contact (Milgram 1974)

Defiant peers effect

The presence of other participants who refuse to obey dramatically reduces obedience levels because it provides a social model for resistance (Milgram 1974)

Gradual escalation of harm

A procedural factor in Milgrams paradigm where increasing shock levels step by step reduces resistance by making each action seem only slightly worse than the last (Milgram 1974)

Self perception theory and obedience escalation

A theory suggesting that people infer attitudes from their behavior and become more willing to continue harmful actions after initially complying with smaller levels of harm (Bem 1967)

Cognitive dissonance and obedience escalation

A theory proposing that people adjust attitudes to justify prior harmful actions which increases commitment to continue obeying (Festinger 1957)

Charismatic leader

An individual in a leadership role who exhibits boldness and self confidence and emphasizes ingroup greatness while offering a compelling worldview especially in times of uncertainty (Becker 1973 Greenberg et al 2008)

Terror management theory and leadership preference

A theory proposing that awareness of mortality increases preference for charismatic leaders who provide meaning security and group significance (Greenberg et al 2008)

Mortality salience effect on political preference

Experimental finding that reminders of death increase support for charismatic leaders such as George W Bush or Donald Trump while reducing support for non charismatic candidates (Landau Solomon et al 2004 Cohen Solomon et al 2004)