MT1 Intro to social/developmental psych- Conformity Flashcards
What is social psychology about?
How thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals are influenced by actual/imaged/implied presence of others (Allport, 1954)
What are norms?
Shared expectations about appropriate behavior, guides rather than laws
What are the two types of norms and what do they both refer to?
Descriptive norms- what people typically do eg looking towards the door in a lift
Injunctive norms- what people ought to do, moral obligation to follow norm eg give seat to pregnant woman
Are norms fixed?
No- vary across historical eras, cultures, groups, situations eg military situation vs carnival
What is the autokinetic effect?
An illusion where a spot of light in a dark room appears to move- occurs because our eyes make saccadic movements looking around for a point of reference
Procedure of Sherif’s experiment (1935, 1936)
Participants asked to judge how far a point of light in a dark room moves
Individual phase- 100 trials where participants judge alone
Group phase- 3 successive daily sessions where participants make judgments aloud in groups of 2/3
Individual-to-group conditions vs group-to-individual condition
Sherif (1935, 1936)- results in individual-to-group condition
All arrive at individual norms as individuals, but once in a group their judgments converge as they conform to what others are saying, by 3rd day judgments are very similar
Sherif (1935, 1936)- results in group-to-individual condition
Convergence of judgement happens very quickly and stays consistent, in individual phase the norms established in group phase prevail and continue to be followed
Describe the procedure for the study showing the no of generations norms persisted
Jacobs and Campbell (1961)- in initial group trials, a confederate gave high judgements of movement
Participants were then replaced 1 by 1 until none of the original participants remained
Describe the results for Jacob and Campbell’s (1961) study of robustness of group norms
Effect of norms died out gradually
Norms continued to have an effect by the 4th/5th generation, ceased by 6th generation
What can the results of Jacob and Campbell’s (1961) study on robustness of norms be extrapolated to
How societal norms can persist even after the reason for original judgement no longer applies
How does Sherif’s (1935, 1936) study show informational influence?
Ambiguous stimulus with no background cues as a frame of reference for apparent movement
People look to others’ judgements as a social frame of reference to calibrate one’s perception against
Field study of conformity (carpark littering) procedure
Cialdini et al (1990)- hospital visitors observed returning to their cars in a car-park
Investigators placed handbills on their car to provide material for littering
Cialdini et al (1990) field study for conformity manipulations
Descriptive norm manipulation- car park was filled with litter
Norm salience manipulation- confederate either dropped litter or just walked past the participant
Cialdini et al (1990) field study for conformity results
Clean environment meant a lot less littering than littered environment
Clean environment- confederate littering reduces littering
Littered environment- confederate littering INCREASES littering
Who proposed Broken Windows Theory
Kelling and Wilson, 1982
What is Broken Windows Theory (1982)
Environmental cues indicating disorder (eg broken windows, litter, graffiti) establish descriptive norms that promote OTHER kinds of disorderly behaviour
Tidying up neighbourhoods should thus reduce crime
Describe the procedure of the study investigating BWT
Keizer et al (2008)- attached advertising flyers to all bicycles locked in an alleyway which had no bins and recorded whether participant littered
A sign in the alleyway said graffiti was prohibited (injunctive norm)
The wall behind the sign was either clean or covered with graffiti (descriptive norm)
What did Keizier et al (2008)’s study aim to investigate?
Inspired by BWT- compared people whether people adhere to injunctive norms when descriptive norms about graffiti contradict or are consistent with the injunctive norms
Results of Keizer et al (2008)’s BWT study
Observing violation of the anti-graffiti norm more than doubled the extent of littering
Pedestrians were also 2x as likely to keep a 5 Euro note in a letter poking out a mail box when it was covered in grafitti
Suggests violation of one norm can weaken conformity to other norms
Procedure of Asch’s line-length studies (1951)
Participants were asked to match one line to 1/3 comparison lines (stimuli was unambiguous)
Participants give answers aloud next to last after all confederates have given consistent wrong answers on key trials
Group size is 5-8
Stages in participants’ reactions (Asch, 1952) in line length study
1) Notice disagreement
2) Seek explanation eg ‘the ones ahead of me were following the ones ahead of them just like I was’
3) Self-doubt
Asch (1952)- what were the 3 reasons for yielding to group incorrect answers
Perception, judgement, action
Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- perception
One participant genuinely saw the lines the way the confederates answered they were
He answered he was giving honest answers and was shocked to find he was incorrect
Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- judgement
One participant did not see the lines as equal, but tried to make themselves see them as equal- trusted the group’s judgement over theirs
Asch (1952) reasons for yielding to group pressure- action
Participants knew the group was wrong but did not want to look like a fool or contradict the group
Asch (1951)- effect of group size
Conformity is low with 1 confederate, but increases to 15% with 2 confederates and 3 to around 35%
After 3, you reach about the highest level of conformity
Asch (1951)- effect of unanimity, accurate vs inaccurate dissenter
One dissenter giving correct answers on key trials reduces conformity by 75%
Even a single dissenter who gives extremely incorrect answers reduces conformity
Allen and Levine (1971) procedure for effect of unreliable dissenter
Confederate with thick-lensed glasses who loudly claimed his eyesight was too poor for distance vision was told to answer in any way they want, ‘randomly maybe’ since they were there
Allen and Levine (1971) results for effect of unreliable dissenter
Conformity was reduced by invalid social support by around a 1/3, though ofc less than valid social support
Dissenter gives participant a license to also not conform
Asch’s study (1952) showing responses to non-conformity
A single confederate made incorrect judgements against a majority of naive participants
Non-conformity met by laughter and ridicule, even by the experimenter who had created the situation
INCENTIVE FOR CONFORMITY!!
What are the 4 main explanations for why people conform?
Normative influence
Informational influence
Referent informational influence
Coordination
What is normative influence
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- Conforming based on desire for social approval, and to avoid dislike, ridicule and social punishment
What is informational influence
Conforming based on desire to be right and reduce uncertainty, look to others about appropriate way to respond and to gain evidence about reality
What is referent informational influence
Desire to feel part of the group (eg Turner, 1991)
Subsumes II and NI
Look to others to see what group norm is so you can behave in a way normative to the group and feel more part of it
What is coordination (reason for conformity)
Optimizing performance by adopting a common perspective and operating as a unified group
Criticisms of Asch’s studies- issue of no bidirectional influence?
Participants are not allowed to answer back, 2-way dialogues would allow more resistance to conformity, confederates explicitly told to avoid engaging with participant
In what way do Asch’s studies show independnce
Participants actually dissented more than they conformed, in 2/3 trials people do not conform to majority despite pressure
How did Moscovici criticise Asch’s ideas
Studies inspired by Asch follow conformity bias- in the history of ideas and behaviour, majority influence cannot be the dominating force, otherwise over time people would increasingly agree
Minority influence can shape the view of a majority
Asch (1952) line length study results
76% of participants conformed at least once to the incorrect majority answer
Conformity occoured in 36.8% of key trials
Participants are visibly confused by the group’s answers, fidgeting and smiling sheepishly
Describe line length study supporting II is involved in Asch’s study
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- participants answer privately so avoid ridicule and NI
Conformity dropped dramatically, but not fully, as some participants were convinced the majority were actually correct (II)
What study shows effect of how incorrect confederate’s answers are on conformity
Asch (1995)- conformity dropped when confederates gave answers that were extremely blatantly incorrect
Study showing effect of age on conformity
Walker and Andrade (1996)- found a negative correlation between age and conformity in children from 6-17 yo
Metanalysis showing several variables affecting conformity
Bond and Smith (1996)- metanalysis of Asch paradigm studies found higher conformity in collectivist countries (due to value of cooperation and conformity), in women, and that conformity rates had dropped over decades to low rates in recent studies
Examples of participants not blindly following the majority, but actively trying to understand the situation and resolve the dissonance
Some believed the first ppt was visually impaired and EVERYONE was conforming to the wrong answer to avoid embarassing them
Some thought it was inconceivable the whole group was wrong so experienced conversion
Some may have thought the group was right but wanted to be true to their own perceptions
Criticisms of Asch’s experimental situation- black and white
IRL conformity is not ‘all-or-nothing’ but subjective, we may be influenced to partially agree- the obviousness of the answers and the incorrect majority left ppts unequipped to deal with the scenario, so easiest to just conform (Ross et al, 1976)
Criticisms of Asch’s experimental situation- triviality
Judgement is not personally meaningful, participants have nothing to ‘gain’ by acting one way or another, Crutchfield (1955) showed conformity was lower if outcomes were personally meaningful
Jahoda’s criticism of conformity bias (1959)
Jahoda (1959)- there is ample evidence of resistance in every experiment that tries to argue against it, there is an implication that ‘insubordinate subjects who are outside the hypothesis-confirming majority are a nuisance’
Asch’s own statement against presenting humans as only conforming beings
‘We should be skeptical, however, of the supposition that the power of social pressure necessarily implies uncritical submission to it’ (1952:34)
What was Sherif’s view of reality
Reality is a social psychological construction in which a social framework of norms gives our perceptions meaning
What do Sherf’s studies demonstrates about society
Demonstrate how our perception and understanding of the world is shaped by elements of culture and society that become embedded in consciousness
How do participants establish norms as individuals in Sherif’s AKI studies
Over successive trials, the median and range established as norms in the first trial persisted, with decreased variation over the 2 subsequent trials
These norms serve as a reference point for judging successive movements (1936)
Why do participants form norms independently in AKI studies
Situation was ambiguous so participants create their own frame of reference for judging the situation
How did Sherif define norms
‘Social products’ that prevailed long beyond the conditions of their inception, locking individuals into certain judgments
What social contexts did Sherif argue his results were generalisable to
When old norms cease to fit, the plastic and unstable situation created promotes the development of new norms
eg during political upheaval, slogans manifest new norms for reality
Political leaders often create the appearance of uncertainty and instability to increase the impact of their slogans
What types of concepts did Sherif class as norms
Values, morals, attitudes beliefs etc, all involve a frame of reference and focal point
Values are the most enduring frames of reference in terms of defining behaviour/attitudes
AKI variant study demonstrating how easy norms can be manipulated
Asch (1937)- individuals across different groups were placed with confederates that responses with different ranges and medians- convergence to each of different norms was produced and prevails even when individuals are tested alone
What did Sherif argue based on anthropological evidence
Even our most basic needs are socially regulated- sexual rules differ across culture (Malinowski, 1927), as well as kinship practices and parenting based on cultural norms
Study showing experimental variables that made the formation of norms more efficient
Hoffman et al (1953)- an actual moving light source and longer exposure time make norm formation mroe efficient
Study showing prevalence of norms over a year!
Rohher et al (1954)- norms established in groups of 6 inch movement persisted when tested individually a year later
Study showing dispositional variables that effect conformity to norms
Vidulich and Kalman (1961)- dogmatic participants conform more to a high status vs low status confederate, while open-minded participants show the inverse
Who criticised Sherif’s study for creating expectations?
Alexander et al (1970)- argued our expectations in a situation shape our tendencies towards structuring..Sherif’s participants believed the light was really moving so there was an objectively correct answer of how far it moved, meaning agreement around this common estimate was a reasonable expectation
Describe Alexander et al (1970)’s study where ‘expectations of structure’ are removed
Participants were told AKI was an illusion, so they shouldn’t be surprised by variable patterns of movement and shouldn’t expect agreement
Participants reported direction and distance changing across trials, with no convergence to norms
How did Alexander et al (1970) interpret their results in which they ‘removed expectations’
Situational expectations explain AKI perceptual convergence, rather than Sherif’s view it was inherent psychological tendencies to regard chaos as uncomfortable
Who challenged Alexander et al (1970)’s criticism of Asch’s AKI interpretation and how
Pollis et al (1976)- Alexander et al created an expectation of divergence instead, so the situation was not uncertain
Describe Pollis et al (1976’s) study criticising Alexander et al’s (1970) removal of expectations study
They added a 3rd condition where participants were only told the AKI was an illusion
They found evidence of convergence that replicated Asch’s findings rather than Alexander’s, showing an unstructured situation leads to the formation of norms and convergence
Study suggesting the nature of participants in the group affects the robustness of group norms
Pollis and Montgomery (1966)- group norms were sustained the most over successive trials if they were originally formed by participants together in a natural (preexisting) group, rather than any combination of natural group/strangers/together/individually
Who proposed ego functions of norm formation
Sherif and Harvey (1952)- uncertainty and anxiety-proviking situations would cause wider range of judgements around a norm, leading to greater convergence to a group norm
How did Sherif and Harvey (1952) test ego functions of norm formation
Participants tested in a highly disorienting and difficult conditions converge more than those tested in a simple condition
Who found less arbitrary norms last longer
MacNeil and Sherif- repeated Jacobs and Campbell’s procedure with less implausible norms and found convergence was greater and persisted for many more trials
Who proposed idea of norm formation as related o ‘shared reality’
Hardin and Higgins (1996)- people gain confidence in their judgements through social verification, so efforts to establish shared reality should dominate social interaction (1996)
Why are those in one’s ingroup more likely to share a social reality with you
Self-categorisation provides psychological boundaries for reference
Turner (1985)- what is he effect of us not agreeing with the group
We view our group as an appropriate reference for social comparison, so we expect to agree with them, meaning when we don’t it creates uncertainty that fosters mutual influence
Procedure of a study of how expectation of agreement is influenced by social categorisation following RII
Abrams et al (1990)- categorization condition- naive ppts given a label H and confederates given a label J
Group identity condition- ppts in each group played a game together
Abrams et al (1990) social categorisation study results
No convergence to confederates occured in both categorisation and group identity conditions, as confederates were in a separate group/category
Shows salient categorisation allows emergence of 2 distinct norms in parallel within the same environment
How does Abrams (1990) study on categorisation support Sherfif?
Supports Sherif’s argument that people seek a frame of reference (categorisation) when forming new norms, meaning categorisation is meaningfully correlated with differences in judgement
Study supporting that we want a shared reality with our group
Robbins and Krueger (2001)- people are likely to overestimate ingroup consensus around their own behaviour or opinion
How do we benefit from norms in our life
Reduce uncertainty about how to behave appropriately (Van den Bos and Lind, 2002), provide structure and order eg orderly queuing system
3 main modes of norm transmission
Deliberate instruction/demonstration, nonverbal behaviours, inference through watching the behaviour of others
How did Hood and Sherif (1962) describe the motives of participants responses in the AKI study
2 motives were relating to others and understanding the social world- reflects a rational accuracy-motivated assessment of the situation
How does the Stanford prison experiment support idea of social norms
Zimbardo et al (1973)- shows power of a situation to encourage the development of new behavioural norms that disinhibit normally disapproved ways of treating others
What did Festinger (1950) propose norm formation/following was the outcome of
Pressure towards uniformity in the group
Festinger (1950) what 2 things does norm formation/following facilitate
Social reality testing- through social comparison, can validate our beliefs and gain subjective reality
Group locomotion- coordination of group allows efficiency to reach desired goals
Study supporting overlap between NI and II motives and consequences
Prislin and Wood (2005)- normative motives can have informational consequences that persist over time and in private settings
Study supporting effect of group salience on conformity
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)- making the group salient will increase people’s desire to be part of the group, increasing conformity following NSI
Study showing effect of group credibility on II
Kiesler and Kiesler (1969)- factors that increase the credibility of the majority as a valid source of reality (eg status/experience) lead to more conformity following II
What is self-categorisation theory
Individuals identify with their ingroup and conform to a prototypical group position to maximise similarities between ingroup members and differences between ingroup and outgroup (Turner et al, 1990)
What are the conditions for RII occuring
Target perceives the source disagrees with their position
Source and target are perceived as members of the same group
Source’s position is prototypical of group norms
Van Knippenberg, 1994)
What is social support
Allen (1975)- - the presence of a person in a group who gives a response that agrees with the subject’s private belief/perception
Secondary study supporting conformity as an ego defence (propaganda)
Propaganda advocating the virtues of independence actually increases conformity (Smith and Richards, 1967) as it arouses anxiety, meaning conformity serves as an ego defence
Study showing how there’s nto a single dispositional factor that increases conformity
People who conform to ambiguous stimuli vs unambiguous stimuli have different personality profiles (McDavid and Sistrunk, 1964)
What types of tasks have Asch’s results on social support been generalised to beyond visual perception
Logical problems (Edmonds, 1964), questions on attitude, plus generalisable to women and children (Allen and Newtson, 1972)
Study into group pressure where participants could abstain from responding- group pressure condition with no social support
Allen (1965)- participants abstained LESS than those in a control condition where subjects answered privately
Suggests a dual-process in group pressure- pressure to ANSWER as well as to agree with group
Study into group pressure where participants could abstain from responding- WITH social support condition
When a confederate also abstained from voting, the subject was willing to abstain at the same rate as those in the control condition
Study suggesting no correlation between personality traits and conformity reduction produced by social support
Allen and Towson (1971)- found a tiny number of 152 correlations were significant, such a small no it can be ascribed to chance
What happens in the Asch studies if a social supporter begins conforming?
Asch (1955)- independence abruptly ceases as participant feels psychologically ‘deserted’
What happens in the Asch studies if a social supporter leaves the room
Asch (1955)- independent persists, but in a slightly weaker way
What happens if the experiment gives feedback of right answer in the Asch studies
Allen and Lepinski (1969)- feedback from experimenter who publically announced right answer reduced conformity
Explain the different effects of experimenter feedback and social support on conformity when they are removed in the Allen and Lepinski study (1969)
Feedback alone is more effective in maintaining nonconformity when it ceases compared to feedback AND social support
May be that in feedback AND social support condition, participants saw themselves as just following the dissenter and didn’t self-attribute independence and preparedness to oppose the group alone
Why may subjects continue nonconforming when a social supporter leaves the room as opposed to beginning conforming
The participant may feel bolstered by the psychological presence of the dissenter, believing they would continue dissenting if they could (were still present) (Allen, 1975)
What is cross-context generalisation
Means from one content (eg visual) to a very different content (eg opinion)
When does cross-content generalisation occur of nonconformity from social support?
When it is ensured ‘the dissent it attributed to self and perceived as independence’ , and only from objective to subjective items (Allen, 1975)
Study supporting the idea that the participant feeling as if they are acting independently is important in maintaining nonconformity
Boyanowsky and Trueman (1973)- participants seeing the answer of the social supporter but answering BEFORE them conformed less (increases the likelihood the participant feels independent rather than imitating)
What did the Boyanowsky and Trueman (1973) study find about the direction of cross-content generalization
Unidirectional, from visual to opinion items
How did Boyanowksy and Trueman (1973) explain the unidirectional cross-content generalisation
Beliefs about physical reality (visual) are more central to our perception than less important matters of social reality- independence is likely to generalise from matters of physical to social reality only
How did Boyanowksy and Trueman (1973) explain the role of the presence of the social supporter
The social supporter became an integral part of the situation for the subject’s independent behaviour, acting as a cue for dissent
What are 2 social factors of the social support effect
Group reaction to dissent, causal attribution
Social factors of social support effect- how does group reaction to dissent relate to social support
Participants expect a less negative reaction from the group with social support, as they have reduced expectations they will be rejected and thus feel less anxiety (Allen, 1964)
Social factors of social support effect- how does causal attribution relate to social support
Reactions of the group will be affected by the perceived cause of an individual’s behaviour- if there is multiple deviates, causal attribution of behaviour is more likely to be based on situational factors than personality traits (that can easily be derogatory)
Social factors of social support effect- study supporting how causal attribution relate to social support
Newston et al (1973)- situational rather than dispositional attribution increased as the no of dissenters increased
Study showing effect of extreme erroneous dissent by social supporter in objective vs subjective tasks
Levine et al (1973)- in both II and NSI conditions, extreme erroneous dissent is only effective on visual items, meaning the presence of a partner (who gives same answer as participant) plays a greater role in conformity reduction on subjective items rather than objective items
Levine et al (1973) study on extreme erroneous dissent by social supporter- why is a partner more important for subjective items than objective items?
Lack of group consensus has different implications for objective/subjective material- for visual matters subject to objective verification, agreement is expected so a dissenter can discredit the group, but for opinions there are many valid ‘correct’ answers and no expectation of group agreement, so conformity is only reduced if the subject has a partner
How is a social supporter helpful as an independent assessment of reality
The social supporter provides a confirmation of physical and social reality when the subject, confronted by anomalous group behaviour, may feel they have lost contact with the external world (Allen, 1975)
Social supporter as independent assessment of reality- how does the supporter reduce conformity when facing cognitive pressure
When the subject’s concern is response accuracy, the social supporter’s ability to provide valid information allows him to reduce conformity
3 reasons conformity increases after social supporter ‘desertion’
The supporter is seen as credible due to their previous agreement with the subject. group credibility is increased when the supporter begins agreeing with them, the subject’s actions are now seen as more dispositional (Allen, 1975)
What factor of ingroup/outgroup membership affects effectiveness of a social partner
Effectiveness is influenced by the partner’s group membership and relevance of beliefs to the subject’s identity as a member of the group exerting pressure
Study supporting relevance of beliefs to subject’s identity as ingroup member as having an effect on social support effectiveness
Boyanowksy and Allen (1973)- for highly prejudiced subjects, a black social supporter was as effective as a white supporter in reducing conformity on visual perception and general social reality items, but less effective for opinion self-referent items
Study supporting the in-group surveillance hypothesis for conformity
Boyanowsky (1970)- highly prejudiced subjects answering after a black accomplice avoided answering closely to them on opinion self-referent items even when there was no group pressure from white group members, especially when participants were told they be evaluated in a confrontation by the group afterwards
Explain how the in-group surveillance hypothesis affects highly prejudiced individuals’ behaviour in Boyanowsky’s (1970) study
The subject attempts to accentuate the disagreement between his answer and the black participant’s, to maintain a self-identity as different as possible from an outgroup member under surveillance of ingroup members
Festinger (1950)- what 3 things increase uniformity pressures
Degree of disagreement within the group, degree of relevance of the disagreement to group functioning, cohesiveness of the group
Study showing effect of group cohesiveness on uniformity pressures
Back (1951)- pairs in high cohesive condition showed stronger tendency to influence one another in communication and change their answers towards their partner
Uniformity pressures were embodied in active attempts at mutual influence rather than just passive acceptance of the other’s opinion
Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process- why do we seek similar others
We seek similar others in order to make informed comparisons (gain subjective valdity) and evaluate ourselves (appraise our abilities)
Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process-what do we compromise between when seeking others
Wanting to be similar vs wanting to be better in ability than others- we seek situations where we can be slightly superior
Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process- what is the effect of being different to others
Induces instability and uncertainty in self evaluation, meaning we are more likely to be influenced by others
What is the fundamental issue with Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process compared to his 1950 uniformity pressure theory
In uniformity pressure, motivation to conform directly confers validity as it indicates one is right, but 1954 theory implies validation is indirect as the motivation to conform is to be similar to others to make more detailed comparisons rather than to be correct- this comparison could equally demonstrate one is incorrect
Who criticised Festinger’s (1954) social comparison process and the need to compare with similar people
Goethals and Darley (1977)- the idea one only compares with similar rather than different people contains a paradox, as defining someone as different in the first place is itself a comparative judgement
What solution did Goethals and Darley propose to the issue of Festinger’s 1954 theory
The related attributes hypothesis- we compare with people providing they are similar on background attributes related to and predictive of the opinion/ability being evaluated ie people who SHOULD be similar in opinion/ability
Fits with eg Tafjel and Turner’s (1986) intergroup relations theory
Study supporting seeking out comparative information from others to reduce uncertainty about what one is feeling as a motive for affiliation
Schachter (1959)- participants in a high fear condition felt uncertainty about what to feel and how to react, so seek the company of others to compare themselves with and gain info about how to behave
FOLLOW UP STUDY supporting seeking out comparative information from others to reduce uncertainty about what one is feeling as a motive for affiliation
Schachter (1959)- subjects only seek the company of those in a similar situation to them, as comparison with people in a different situation would not provide information appropriate for reducing uncertainty
Deutsch and Gerrard- what increases NSI
Group belongingness and social interdependence, surveillance of one’s response
Deutsch and Gerrard- what decreases NSI
Public and private commitment to some prior course of action producing conflicting expectations in others and oneself
What is the inward effect of informational/normative influence
II- leads to private acceptance and internalization, long-lasting attitude change
NI- outward conformity but not necessarily inwards conformity
What are the 3 processes of influence distinguished by Kelman (1958)
Compliance, internalization and identification
What 2 of Kelman’s processes of influence are invovled in NSI
Compliance (based on others’ power to mediate rewards and costs) and identification (based on attraction to the other, can lead to acceptance of other’s values as long as the relationship is maintained)
Under what conditions do people conform more to attractive groups than less attractive groups? (Turner, 1991)
They feel part of the group, they define the majority’s responses as the group norm, they perceive the basis of group cohesiveness as relevant to the task, or believe conformity is necessary for group acceptance
What is Turner’s (1991) conclusion about NSI and II
NSI and II are rarely distinguishable in research data
Variables like group interdependence, cohesiveness and unanimity can exert their effects on conformity through one or both processes eg a cohesive group means mroe desire for approval (as they like the group more) and they will see the group as a more trustworthy source of information
What do Keizer et al (2008) define as the Cialdini effect
If injunctive norm informatino ie an anti-graffitti sign is in conflict with descriptive norm information, it is less likely to be followed
What is Keizer et al’s (2008) cross-norm inhibition effect
Cross-norm inhibition effect- violation of one norm fosters violation of other norms, as viewing inappropriate behaviour weakens one’s concern for appropriateness and strengthens conflicting hedonic and gain goals
What did Keizer et al (2008) argue cross-norm inhibtion effect extends to
Police ordinances, also as effect when disorder is linked to visual cues eg hearing setting off of illegal fireworks
