Study Notes on Social Psychology: Conformity
Social Psychology: Conformity
Social Influence
Definition of Social Influence:
The ways that people are affected by the real and imagined pressures of others.
Components of Social Influence:
Conformity:
The act of changing perceptions, opinions, or behaviors in ways that align with group norms.
Compliance:
Changes in behavior elicited by direct requests.
Obedience:
Behavior change produced by the commands of authority.
Key Question:
What factors lead human beings to yield to or resist social influence?
Continuum of Social Influence
Yielding to Influence:
Obedience, Compliance, Conformity
Resisting Influence:
Independence, Assertiveness, Defiance
Conformity
Description of Conformity:
The tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior consistent with group norms.
Self-Identification:
Individuals are encouraged to consider if they identify as conformists or nonconformists.
Reflection:
When did you last breach social norms?
Cultural Observation:
Researchers found that people in North America often identify as nonconformists.
Question for Reflection:
Why do you think this is?
The Early Classics
Solomon Asch’s Study (1951):
Focused on how people's beliefs can affect the beliefs of others.
Utilized statements about the length of a line to test the influence of the group on the subject’s response.
Asch’s Study Results
Findings:
Confederates (actors) stated incorrect judgments for 12 out of 18 presentations.
Subjects conformed to the incorrect group judgment 37% of the time.
Details regarding conformity rates:
50% conformed at least half the time.
25% refused to agree with any incorrect judgments.
Remaining participants conformed occasionally.
The Early Classics
Muzafer Sherif’s Study (1936):
Examined how norms develop in small groups by utilizing the autokinetic effect (an optical illusion).
Participants were influenced by others’ estimations of how far a stationary light moved (2-6 inches).
Important Note: The light never actually moved.
A Classic Case of Suggestibility
Findings from Sherif's Study:
Graphical representation shows three participants’ estimates converging.
Before meeting in groups, perceptions varied; in groups, they conformed to the developed norm.
Comparison of Study Results
Sherif’s study:
Participants looked to each other for guidance, demonstrating that in uncertainty, others can serve as a valuable source of information.
Asch’s study:
Demonstrated that even aware of the group's incorrectness, people may conform to avoid feeling conspicuous or foolish.
Why Do People Conform?
Informational Influence:
The need to be right; individuals want to make accurate judgments and assume that consensus implies correctness.
Normative Influence:
The fear of ostracism; concern about the consequences of rejection following deviance.
Prompt for Reflection:
Can you provide examples?
Distinguishing Types of Conformity
Neuroscientific Findings:
fMRI studies indicate group conformity can lead to brain changes indicating altered perceptions, not just behavior.
Types of Conformity:
Private Conformity:
True acceptance or conversion of opinions.
Public Conformity:
Superficial change in overt behavior without a corresponding change in opinion (compliance).
Effects of Social Ostracism
Emotional Impact:
Ostracism can lead to emotional distress, lowered self-esteem, feelings of loneliness, hurt, and anger.
Evolutionary Perspective:
Evolutionary scientists argue for humans' need for social connection for survival.
Neural Implications:
Social pain of rejection activates brain areas associated with physical pain.
Two Types of Conformity
Description of Studies:
Sherif’s Study:
Group norms influence opinions when participants face ambiguity.
Asch’s Study:
Participants felt external pressure for simple judgments, leading to public conformity without private acceptance.
Experimental Task Summary
Sherif's Task:
Ambiguous autokinetic effect leading to private acceptance through informational influence.
Asch's Task:
Simple line judgments yielding public conformity through normative influence.
Majority Influence
Influencing Factors:
Group size, a focus on norms, and cultural impact.
Differentiation between individualistic cultures (value autonomy) and collectivistic cultures (value conformity).
Cultural Pressure:
Pressure to conform and the role of shame in influencing behavior.
Majority Influence (continued)
Influencing Factors (continued):
Having an Ally in Dissent:
The presence of a single confederate agreeing with the dissenter can reduce conformity significantly (by almost 80% in Asch's studies).
Any dissent, even non-validating, can lessen normative pressures.
Minority Influence
General Observation:
Individuals with opposing beliefs are seen as competent but can be disliked and rejected.
Roles of Nonconformists:
Nonconformists can be agents of social change through minority influence—where dissenters impact group dynamics.
Serge Moscovici’s Theory
Attributes of Nonconformists:
Nonconformists derive power from their behavioral style.
To be effective, they must be forceful, persistent, and unwavering, while appearing flexible and open-minded.
Strategic Approach:
Holland proposed an alternative strategy: initially conforming, then dissenting.
Social Impact Theory
Factors Influencing Social Influence:
Strength of the Source:
Immediacy of the Source:
Time and space proximity.
Number of Sources:
Defiance: When People Rebel
Rebellion and Defiance:
Social influence can lead to rebellion.
Synchrony of Behavior:
Can create unity, thus increasing conformity to group actions.
Presence of Allies:
Allies can empower individuals to resist orders they find objectionable.
Benefits of Dissent
Positive Aspects of Dissent:
Fosters innovation and encourages careful consideration among group members.
Enhances the quality of output of group tasks.
Condition for Productive Dissent:
Must be genuine and involve understanding opposing views (e.g., acting as “Devil’s Advocate”).
Perspectives on Human Nature
Key Questions for Consideration:
Are people predisposed to accept influence or resist?
Cultural Differences:
Some cultures prioritize autonomy versus those emphasizing group conformity.
Future Implications:
Will future generations demonstrate more resistance to social influence?
Potential effects on society?
Compliance
Definition:
Behavioral changes elicited by direct requests.
Components Influencing Compliance:
Rules, Laws, Standards, Requirements, and Policies.
The Norm of Reciprocity
Definition:
Dictates that we treat others as they have treated us, creating an obligation to repay acts of kindness—even unsolicited.
Cultural Perspectives:
Varies in effectiveness between individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies
Foot-in-the-Door Technique:
Two-step technique where an initial small request is followed by a larger request.
Example:
Asking for a small favor before a larger one.
Lowballing:
Two-step method where agreement is secured on one request, then hidden costs are revealed later.
Sequential Request Strategies (continued)
Door-in-the-Face Technique:
A large initial request is rejected, followed by a more modest request.
That's-not-all Technique:
Starts with an inflated request and then decreases the size by adding discounts or bonuses (commonly found in infomercials).
Assertiveness: When People Say No
Strategies for Resistance:
Stay vigilant against compliance techniques.
Avoid feeling obligated by the norm of reciprocity.
Recognize when compliance tactics are being employed.
Obedience
Definition of Obedience:
Behavior change elicited by authority commands.
Authority Symbols:
Authority can be signified by symbols such as titles, uniforms, badges, etc., even without credentials.
Milgram’s Results on Obedience
Context of Study:
Conducted with 40 participants from New Haven area, who administered shocks in response to commands.
Critical Findings:
Participants delivered an average of 27 of 30 possible shocks.
65% (26 participants) delivered the maximum shock of 450 volts.
Control group members who were not prompted by the experimenter refused to escalate shocks early on.
The Learner's Protests in the Milgram Experiment
Protests Recorded by Participants:
Participants heard the learner respond to increasing shock levels, including protests of pain and refusal to continue as shocks escalated.
For instance:
At 150 volts: "Ugh!! Experimenter! Get me out of here! I've had enough…"
At 330 volts: "Let me out of here. You have no right to keep me here!"
Response Prediction
Questions for Reflection:
Do you think you would have stopped administering shocks?
If so, at what voltage?
Why do you think others continued?
Comment on Zimbardo’s remark, "All evil begins at 15 volts" with examples.
Experimenter’s Responses
Verbal Prompts to Participants:
Participants were met with authoritative statements when expressing reluctance to stop:
"Please continue."
"The experiment requires that you continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice; you must go on."
Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience
Ethical Considerations:
The study generated ethical debate over the psychological harm it posed to participants.
Study's Presentation:
Presented as a study on punishment effects in learning, leading participants to believe they administered increasingly severe shocks.
Milgram’s Findings on Response Predictions
Public Predictions:
Predictions from groups estimated stopping at 135 volts, with few believing they would administer the maximum shock of 450 volts.
Participants, like psychiatrists and college students, assumed others would have limited obedience.
The Obedient Participant
Participant Reactions:
Most participants felt tormented but continued following commands despite pleas to stop.
Gender factors were negligible; similar obedience rates were noted with female participants.
Findings replicated globally across different cultures and age groups.
Important Factors in Milgram’s Results
Authority Figure’s Influence:
Obedience was contingent on the presence of a prestigious authority figure.
Reducing authority’s apparent status led to lower obedience rates (48% compliance).
Replacing the authority figure with an ordinary individual further reduced obedience to 20%.
Important Factors in Milgram’s Results (continued)
Victim Influence:
Situational characteristics of the victim were vital; sitting next to the victim lowered obedience to 40%.
Forcing the victim’s hand onto a shock plate decreased compliance to 30%.
Obedience fell to 15% if participants had a prior relationship with the victim.
Important Factors in Milgram’s Results (continued)
Aspects of the Procedure:
Participants felt less personal responsibility for the victim’s welfare, mitigating feelings of personal accountability.
The shock levels were gradually escalated in small increments (similar to the foot-in-the-door technique).
The novelty of the situation led to unconsidered responses; rapid pacing prevented deliberation over moral implications.
Variations of Milgram's Study
List of Variations:
Each variation changed one or more procedural aspects to analyze different influences on obedience.
No Feedback
Voice Feedback
Proximity
Touch
Coronary Trouble
Different Actors
Group Pressure to Disobey
Learners Proviso
Good/Bad Experimenter
Experimenter Becomes Learner
Group Pressure to Obey
Conflicting Instructions
Group Choice
Role Reversal
Non-trigger Position
Carte Blanche
Teacher in Charge
No Experimenter
Authority from Afar
Women
Expert Judgment
Peer Authority
Bridgeport
Intimate Relationships
Are We Comparable to Nazis?
Moral Considerations:
Differences in individual character must be acknowledged.
F-Scale (Authoritarian Personality):
Scores on this scale correlate with rigidity, dogmatism, and intolerance.
High scores are linked with submissiveness to authority but aggression towards lower-status individuals.
Milgram identified factors that could both increase and decrease the rates of obedience.