Social Influence: Conformity and Compliance

Social Influence

Introduction

• The lecture explores social influence, specifically focusing on conformity and compliance.

Conformity

• Definition: A change in behavior due to the perceived influence of others.
• Types of Influence:
  • Normative Influence:
    • The desire to be accepted or approved of.
    • Leads to public compliance without private acceptance of the norm.
  • Informational Influence:
    • The desire to be correct or accurate.
    • Involves private acceptance of the norm.

Conformity and Norms

• Norm Definition: A rule or standard for what is acceptable, appropriate, or correct in terms of judgment, value, perception, belief, and behavior.
• Sherif’s Studies on the Emergence and Perseverance of Group Norms:
  • Utilized the autokinetic effect (stimulus ambiguity).
  • Observed spontaneous convergence of estimates, indicating norm emergence.
  • Demonstrated how these estimates endured, showcasing norm perseverance.

Emergence of Norms - Informational Influence (Sherif, 1936)

• Experiments involved subjects estimating the movement of a light in a dark room (autokinetic effect).
• Judgments of movement are completely subjective, making reality ambiguous.
• There was minimal pressure to conform.
• The norm persevered through numerous trials, even when subjects gave estimates alone.

Normative Influence - Asch’s Conformity Research

• Subjects made judgments of line length.
• Reality was unambiguous.
• When alone, subjects chose the correct line $99$ of the time.

Asch's Conformity Research

• Examined whether subjects would go along with the group when the rest of the group expressed an incorrect judgment (unanimously).
• Normative influence involves changing behavior to be accepted or approved of by others.

Results of Asch's Study & Class Surveys

• Surveys were conducted in previous classes to gauge predicted conformity in an Asch line-length study.
• The actual conformity rate in Asch's study was compared with self-predicted conformity rates.

Follow-Up Studies to Asch

• Asch measured the effect of having at least one confederate dissent and give the correct answer.

Group Size and Conformity

• Conformity increases with group size, but only up to a point.
• The relationship between group size and conformity was visualized in a graph, showing the percent conforming with an incorrect response as group size increased.

Factors Increasing Conformity

• Subject is a solitary dissenter.
• The behavior is public.
• People are unsure of a situation, or it’s a crisis.
• Group size increases (up to a point).
• The group is ‘important’ to the person.
• People are of lower status.
• The motivation to be accurate is high (informational influence) and ambiguity is high.

Need for Accuracy and Informational Influence

• The impact of the need to be accurate on informational influence depends on the level of ambiguity (Baron et al., 1996).
• A study varied both the importance of accuracy and the ambiguity of the task.
• When ambiguity is high, the level of importance has a greater effect on conformity.

Compliance with Requests

• Discusses mindless compliance and the role of automaticity.
• Techniques for obtaining compliance include:
  • “Foot-in-the-door”
  • “Door-in-the-face”

Foot-In-The-Door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

• People are more likely to agree to a large request if they have already agreed to a small request.
• A study showed that people who first signed a petition were more likely to agree to put up an ugly sign in their yard.

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

• People are more likely to agree to a moderate request if they have first been presented with a large request (that they are likely to turn down).

Obedience (Compliance with Authority)

• Milgram tested obedience to authority by having a subject (assigned to the role of “teacher”) shock a learner (his confederate) with increasingly stronger shocks for errors.
• The confederate first complains, then screams, then ceases responding.
• The experimenter orders the subject to continue the shocks.
• The question: How far would subjects go?

Milgram Experiment Setup

• Illustrates the positions of the subject (teacher), confederate (learner), and experimenter.

Results of Milgram's Obedience Experiment

• Graphs showing the percentage of subjects still obedient at increasing shock levels.
• Most subjects continued to administer shocks despite the learner's complaints, pleas, and eventual silence.

Results of Class Survey on Milgram's Experiment

• Students were asked what percentage of Milgram's subjects would go to $450$ volts.
• Compared predictions from those familiar and unfamiliar with the study, against the actual results.

Predicted Shock Voltages in Class Survey

• Students predicted the voltages at which they and the average student would stop in the Milgram experiment.
• The actual mean shock delivered was compared to these predictions.

Explaining Milgram’s Findings

• Explanations for the high levels of obedience include:
  • “Foot-in-the-door” phenomenon
  • Cognitive dissonance / Self-justification
  • Informational and normative influence
  • External attribution for subject's behavior
  • The power of the situation (Arendt’s “banality of evil”)

Re-enactment of Milgram's Study

• Consideration of whether the same results would be obtained if the study were conducted today.

Factors Influencing Compliance in Milgram's Study

• Distance of Authority: Physical proximity to the experimenter.
• Distance of Victim: Physical proximity to the learner.
• Status of Authority: The perceived legitimacy of the experimenter.
• Status of Individual: The subject's own social standing or authority.
• Presence of Others and Their Behavior: Whether other individuals obeyed or disobeyed.

Implications of Milgram’s Findings

• Challenges the assumption that subjects were “weak” or sadistic.
• Demonstrates how ordinary people can become agents in a terrible destructive process simply by doing their jobs (S. Milgram).
• Raises questions about external validity and ethical issues, including long-term follow-up with subjects.

Variables Affecting Compliance and Conformity in Group Contexts

• Unanimity
• Cohesion
• Public vs. Private Behavior
• Prior Commitment
• Novelty or Ambiguity of Situation (Informational Influence)

Individual Differences in Compliance and Conformity

• Gender
• Personality factors
  • Agreeableness, Conscientiousness
• Cultural factors (Individualist vs. Collectivist)

Injunctive vs. Descriptive Norms

• Descriptive Norms: What do people actually do (or refrain from doing)? - e.g littering or not littering
• Injunctive Norms: What should people do (or refrain from doing)? - e.g rules of the law

Conclusion

• Discussion on what the results of these studies tell us about “human nature.”