Social - Lecture 6 - Conformity, attitudes & persuasion (1)

Question 1

1. Define two types of social influence (conformity and compliance)

Answer 1

Several types of social influence: ‘the ways that people are affected by the real and imagined pressures of others’ (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

Social influence varies in its realisation and effects.

Conformity (as understood by social psychologists) refers to changing one’s perception, opinions & behaviour in line with group norms (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2011).

Versus compliance:
Changing behaviour in response to direct request (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2011)

Conformity widespread, BUT:
People don’t like to ‘admit’ to being influenced (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004).
People report others as more conforming than themselves (Pronin et al, 2007).

Question 2

2. Describe two classic studies in conformity, Sherif (1936) and Asch (1951), with reference to informational and normative influence

Answer 2

Sherif (1936): Establishing a group norm.
Norms guide behaviour under conditions of uncertainty. Sherif put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and say how far it moved.
Psychologists had previously disc­overed a small, unmoving light in a dark room would appear to be moving. This was labeled the autokinetic effect.
The autokinetic effect is an illusion; the light does not actually move. However, people usually believe that it does.
Sherif realized an experience completely “in people’s heads” might be influenced by suggestion. He decided to study how the autokinetic effect might be influenced by other people’s opinions.
First Sherif studied how people reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were alone in the room. He found that individ­uals established a norm for the judgment. They usually deciding the light was moving between 2 to 6 inches, and they became consis­tent in making this judgment from trial to trial.
Next groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compro­mise.
People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches started to make smaller judgments like 4 inches. Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4 inches. People changed to resemble others in the group.
Sherif’s subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects, “Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments?” most denied it.

However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed to the group judgment. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving about 4 inches.
These subjects were changed by the group experience, whether they realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms or agreed-upon standards of behavior.
Sherif’s experiment showed that group norms are established through inter­action of individuals, with a leveling-off of extreme opinions. The result is a consen­sus agreement that tends to be a com­promise, even if it is wrong. (https://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch15-social/conformity.html) - put in your own words

Asch (1951) - Line Judgement Task -
6-9 confederates, 1 participant, 18 trials.
Confederates gave ‘wrong’ answer on 12 out of 18 trials
Participants conformed to the majority response on approx. 33% of the trials.

Sherif’s task was ambiguous. Others’ served as a source of information (Festinger, 1954)
No ambiguity in Asch’s study but some still conformed to the majority (incorrect) answer.
Caught between the need to be right and the desire to be liked (Insko et al., 1982)
Sherif & Asch’s studies indicated 2 different reasons:
Informational influence
Normative influence (deviancy from group norms can mean being disliked, rejected, ridiculed and dismissed) (Schachter, 1951)
Informational influence - Asch found having one other dissenter reduced conformity by 80%
Due to ally agreeing with participant or disagreeing with the majority?
Also, means the need to be right, when people conform with others and copy their actions because they do not know what to say or how to act ( Dual-Processing Dependency Model. Deutsch and Gerard)

Question 3

3. Discuss conditions that may increase/decrease likelihood of conformity.

Answer 3

Sherif & Asch’s studies indicated 2 different reasons:
Informational influence
Normative influence (deviancy from group norms can mean being disliked, rejected, ridiculed and dismissed) (Schachter, 1951)

Size of the group: Size of the majority only matters to a point.

Suggests that social rejection has powerful effects…

Asch found having one other dissenter reduced conformity by 80%
Due to ally agreeing with participant or disagreeing with the majority?
Allen & Levine (1969; 1971) tested this and found simply having a fellow dissenter reduced conformity
Suggests…
Easier to be part of a tiny dissenting minority than standing alone
Any type of dissent from ally reduces conformity

Question 4

4. Discuss at least two research findings on compliance with reference to social psychological theory.

Answer 4

Changing behaviour in response to direct request (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2011)
How do people get others to comply with
 their requests?
Strategies used could depend on 
How well we know target person
Our status within the relationship
Culture
Nature of the request

Langer et al. (1978) – pushing in a queue
A: ‘Excuse me. I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine?’
B: ‘Excuse me. I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?’
C: ‘Excuse me. I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?’
Langer also examined what happened if the number of pages requested by the “pusher-inner” went up to 20. In this instance:
Compliance dropped across all conditions.
Compliance in condition B dropped to being the same as condition A. Langer suggested that when a request requires more effort from or has more impact on an individual (e.g. asking for 20 pages to be copied rather than 5), mindless responding is replaced by more “thoughtful” responding within which the adequacy of the reason provided becomes more important.

The door in the face - Larger to smaller request
Cialdini et al. (1975): College students asked to do
voluntary work 2 hrs per week for 2 years
A ‘one off’ 2 hrs
Findings: Smaller request only = 17% compliance
Large then smaller = 50% compliance

Explanation: ‘Reciprocal concession’
Person requesting has compromised (decreased request)
Recipient of request should compromise by compliance
Used commercially in pricing!! (see Burger, 1986).