Lecture 3 - conformity Flashcards
Social influence
A change in behavior caused by real or imagined pressure
- Key = some form of bx change
- intention may or may not play a role
Types of social influence
- Conformity
- Compliance
- Obedience
Conformity
Behavior change designed to match the behavior of others
Compliance
Behavior change that occurs as a result of a direct request
Obedience
Compliance that occurs in response to a directive from an authority figure
Why do ppl conform?
- Informational Social Influence
2. Normative social influence
Informational social influence
- due to a desire to gain information
- Stronger and more enduring effect (people are internalizing these norms)
- E.g., Fire alarm goes off – What do you do? You look to others to see what to do
- Key = ambiguous situation
Normative social influence
- Social influence in which behavior is changed to conform to a social norm
- Social influence due to a desire to gain rewards and/or avoid punishment
- NOT ambiguous situation
- May not internalize norms
2 factors in normative social infl
- Input from others serves as clue to nature of norm in effect
- Size and unanimity of majority informs strength of norm
Sherif’s (1935) Study of the Development of Social Norms found
- A social norm developed in each group
- Once participants left the group, the norm continued to influence judgments
- Conformity occurred even when others made extreme judgments
Autokinetic Effect
An optical illusion in which a stationary point of light appears to move in a dark room
Asch’s (1951) Study of Conformity: A Line Judgment Task
- Participants conformed to the confederates’ judgments –> 76% conformed at least once
- When alone - judgments 93% accurate
- Easier to conform than dissent
Distortion of perception
Come to doubt your own senses; Maybe they really agreed with the majority
Distortion of judgment
Lacked confidence in their own assessment
Psychological reactance
When you feel as though your decision making ability is being threatened, you will react and buck the trend (why ~25% did not conform in Asch’s study)
Greater conformity observed when:
- Task is ambiguous
- The majority is large (up to about 5)
- The group is cohesive
- The majority is unanimous (no “true partner”)
True partner
Someone who violates the norm
Majority and Minority influence - 2-Process Model
- Majority influence operates on public level - Works via pressure (Normative Social Influence)
- Minority influence operates on private level
- People think deeply about issues- (Informational Social Influence)
Majority and Minority influence - 1 process model
- Social Impact Theory
- Influence = f(SIN)
- Nonlinear model
Social impact theory
Social influence is a function of strength, immediacy, and number of influential sources
Cialdini’s (2001) Principles of Compliance
LASCRASv • Reciprocation • Commitment/Consistency • Social Validation • Scarcity • Liking • Authority
Reciprocation
People are willing to comply with requests from those who have provided something first
Door-in-the-face Technique
Reciprocation -
- Start with large request (denied), which is then followed by a smaller request
Perceptual Contrast
Reciprocation - why it works
- Because the first request was so large and the second so small, the second seems much smaller
Self-presentation explanation
Reciprocation - why it works
- You don’t want appear as though you will constantly reject someone
Commitment/consistency
People are willing to engage in a behavior if they see it as being consistent with an existing or previously made commitment
Foot-in-the-door Technique
Start with a small request and follow that with a larger request
- People want to remain consistent with their response to their initial request
Why Foot in the door works
Self-perception theory
perceptual contrast hypothesis
Thoughts processes of recipients
Thoughts processes of recipients
Works better if people have a higher need for cognitive consistency
Lowball technique
After people agree to an initial request then there all these additional things that must be completed with the request
Social validation
- People are willing to engage in a behavior if they see evidence that others (particularly similar others) are engaging in the behavior
E.g., Suicides (rates usually increase after a public suicide
Scarcity
- People find objects and opportunities attractive If they are scarce, rare, or dwindling in availability
E.g., Advertisement (“Limited time offer”)
Liking/friendship
People prefer to say yes to people they know and like
Authority
People are willing to follow the directions or recommendations of someone they view as an authority
Destructive obedience
Obedience that results in behavior counter to accepted standards of moral behavior
Eichmann’s Fallacy
The belief that evil deeds are only done by evil people
- Milgram disproved this
4 roots of evil deeds
- Instrumentality
- Threatened Egotism
- Idealism
- Sadism
Instrumentality
→ Violence is used to achieve some end state
Threatened egoism
→ Violence is used to restore pride/honor
Idealism
→ Violence used to achieve good
Sadism
→ Violence is used because it is good
3 other roots
- Difficult Life Conditions
- Cultural and Personal Preconditions
- Terror Management Theory - Social-Political Organization
- Totalitarian/Authoritarian regimes that institute segregation
Stanley Milgram’s (1963) Study of Obedience
- Each time the learner gives an incorrect response, the teacher must give him a shock (increasing in 15 volt intervals – 15 to 450 volts)
• Foot-In-The-Door Technique - Results –> No one exited the study before 300 volts, 65% of participants completed the study
Factors Affecting Obedience
- Baseline (65%)
- Proximity of Victim -
- In same room (40%);
- Touch victim (30%) - Location of Experiment
- Run down office (48%) - Authority Figure
- “Average Joe” experimenter (20%)
- Proximity: Experimenter gives orders by phone (10%)
Why did so many people obey?
o Foot-in-the-Door Technique
o Reciprocation (for money)
o Experimenter claimed responsibility
Are Milgram’s Findings Generalizable?
- Conceptual replications
Eg The Nurse Study (Hofling et al., 1966) - Cross-cultural replications
- Stability of findings over time
