Lecture 6 - Conformity and Obedience

Conformity

A change in an individual's behaviour due to the real or imagined influence of others; occurs due to Normative and Informational Social Influence

Informational Social Influence

Relying on other people as a source of information to guide our behaviour, leading to conformity because we believe others' interpretation of an ambiguous situation is correct

Sherif - Autokinetic Effect Study

Pps estimated how much a stationary dot of light appeared to move (an illusion caused by involuntary eye movement) alone and in groups; estimates varied widely alone but converged to a group consensus with more people, and this norm persisted even as original members were gradually replaced

Private Acceptance

Conforming to others' behaviour out of a genuine belief that it is correct; often results from Informational Social Influence

When Informational Social Influence is Most Likely

In ambiguous situations, crisis situations, and when others are perceived as experts

Baron et al. (1996)

Pps conformed on an eyewitness task 35% of the time in a low-importance condition versus 51% in a high-importance condition, suggesting crisis/importance increases Informational Social Influence

Normative Social Influence

Conforming to what others do in order to be liked and accepted, and to avoid rejection or ridicule

Asch (1951)

Pps judged which of three lines matched a reference line while confederates gave incorrect answers on certain rounds; 75% conformed at least once, 37% of total answers conformed, three confederates were enough for maximum conformity, and having one dissenting ally reduced conformity

Public Compliance

Conforming to others' behaviour publicly without necessarily believing in it privately; typically results from Normative Social Influence

Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981)

Suggests conformity to Normative Social Influence depends on the importance of the group, immediacy (closeness in space/time), group size, and cultural values (more prominent in collectivist samples)

Minority Influence

A minority can influence a majority when it is consistent in its position and when it introduces new, unexpected information (which then becomes informational social influence)

Injunctive Norms

Perceptions of what behaviours are approved or disapproved of by others (e.g. spitting on the street is disapproved of)

Descriptive Norms

Perceptions of how people actually behave in a given situation, regardless of whether it is approved or disapproved of

Reno et al. (1993)

Found pps were less likely to litter both when they thought it broke a descriptive norm (seeing a confederate litter in a clean area) and when they thought it broke an injunctive norm (seeing a confederate pick up litter)

Shultz et al. (2007)

Households given descriptive-only norm feedback about energy use showed high users reducing and low users increasing usage, but households given descriptive + injunctive norm feedback (with a smiley/sad face) showed high users reducing and low users staying the same, showing injunctive norms shape behaviour

Foot-in-the-Door Technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

Getting people to agree to a small request first makes them more likely to agree to a larger, subsequent request, in order to maintain a helpful self-image

Door-in-the-Face Technique (Cialdini et al., 1975)

Making an unreasonably large first request (likely to be refused) makes people more likely to agree to a smaller, second request, to avoid seeming unreasonable and avoid refusing twice

Milgram - Obedience Study

Found 62% of pps were willing to administer what they believed was a maximum, dangerous electric shock in response to an authority figure's prompting, despite the "learner" confederate expressing pain, wanting to leave, or going silent

Milgram - Heart Condition Variation

Found 80% of pps continued administering shocks even after the confederate said his heart was bothering him

Milgram - Factors Facilitating Obedience

Ambiguous situation (Informational Social Influence), fear of researcher disapproval (Normative Social Influence), and the researcher's authoritative appearance

Milgram - Variation Studies

Obedience dropped to 10% when other confederates refused to continue, dropped when the setting moved from a university to an office building (reduced authority), and dropped to 23% when the researcher gave orders by phone instead of in person (reduced immediacy)

Why People Obey (Milgram)

People may obey the wrong norm while still following a norm; self-justification of small escalating actions may occur (a response to cognitive dissonance); and a perceived lack of personal responsibility increases compliance with instructions