SP Chapter 9: Groups, norms and conformity Flashcards
face to face groups
groups that are formed because members share a common goal, or to complete a task.
bv lab groups, sport team
social groups do not ….
have to interact -> gender bijvoorbeeld
what is an advantage of face to face groups
they have a direct influence
similarity between social norms and attitudes
both are cognitive representations of correct/appropriate ways of thinking, behaving, and feeling in response to social objects and events
differences attitudes and social norms
attitude = individuals evaluation
norm = groups evaluation
descriptive social norms
what people actually do/think/feel
injunctive norms / prescriptive norms
what people think they should think/feel/do
sherifs experiment
Consider, for example, Muzafer Sherif’s (1936) classic demonstration of a group’s
power to affect its members’ beliefs. Each participant in Sherif’s experiment first sat alone
in a totally dark room and focused on a single point of light. As the participant watched,
the light seemed to jump erratically and then disappear. Seconds later the light again
appeared, moved, and disappeared. Each time the light appeared, the observer had to
estimate how far it moved. In fact, the light did not move at all. Because a dark room
provides no points of reference, a stationary point of light appears to careen in a jagged
circle, but this is just an optical illusion. Given the ambiguity of the situation, it is not
surprising that the participants’ original distance estimates differed, ranging from barely
an inch to nearly a foot.
These numbers changed dramatically, however, when participants returned to the
lab in the following days to judge the light’s movement, this time as members of threeperson
groups. As they heard one another’s estimates of the light’s movement, group
members’ responses began to converge until they were nearly identical (see Figure 9.1).
And these shared estimates had lasting power: As much as a year later, these participants
continued to use the common response when judging the light, even when alone (Rohrer,
Baron, Hoffman, & Schwander, 1954).
In coming to this collective agreement, group members established a social norm,
or consensus, about the movement of the light
sherifs experiment kort
ambiguous situation about light distance: when they were put in a group of 3, people conformed to the common estimate.
= auto-kinetic effect
conformity =
the convergence of individuals thoughts, feelings or behaviour towards a social norm
why does conformity occur
- normative: want to fit in with the group
- informative: believe that the group knows better
private conformity
occurs when people are truly persuaded that the group is right, when they willingly and privately accept group norms as their own beliefs, even if the group is no longer physically present.
-> bijvoorbeeld bij Sherif experiment!
public conformity
occurs when people respond to real or imagined pressure and behave consistently with norms that they do not privately accept as correct. Public conformity produces only a surface change: People pretend to go along with the group norm in what they say or do, but privately they do not think the group is right.
-> bijvoorbeeld bij Asch’s experiment!
waarom waren de resultaten van Asch en Sherif niet verwacht op basis van cultuur
individualistic cultures: value individual autonomy (dus private/public conformity wordt soms negatief gezien)
participants in social experiments often deny having been affected, why?
- underestimate own susceptibility
- negative cultural connotations of conformity
maar… anderen wel inschatten als er in trappen. en ook al kunnen ze het wel aan de resultaten zien
false consensus effect
the tendency to overestimate others’ agreement with one’s own opinions, characteristics, and behaviors
why does the false consensus effect occur
- because people think their own thoughts are right -> common reality = mastery
- agreement –> motivation to bond, certainty -> belonging = connectedness
1 woord voor asch experiment =
conformity
asch: the amount of influence increased when the group size increased…
up until 3 ppl answering incorrectly, daarna bleef het een beetje gelijk
what did adding of an ally do to the participants
decreased conformity to 10% -> dus een ally die met de participanten agrees leidt tot minder conformity.
zelfs als de confederate het verkeerde antwoord gaf of dropped out after a few responses
when the size of the dissenting minority increases, the majorities opinion seems more and more open to question, and is less likely to be adopted
the descriptive norm is not uniformly held -> no more power to persuade.
how do norms lead to connectedness
conforming to group norms helps to reconfirm our social identity
normative influence
the process by which group norms are privately accepted to
achieve or maintain connectedness and a valued social identity
–> dus informational and normative influence gaat over private acceptance!
oxytocin role in conformity and norms
oxytocin increases conformity to one’s group and people adopt group norms when they are reminded of their membership
reference group
those people accepted as an appropriate source of information for a judgment because they share the attributes relevant for making that judgment
wie kies je voor een opinion-based or value-laden judgement
people with similar values attitudes or relationships (dus vaak in-groups!).
how does the in-group membership act
as a persuasion heuristic -> especially when motivation / capacity are low.
in-group info receives more systematic processing than outgroup
you do not need to have other group members present to conform to group norms
because conformity can occur whenever groups are salient, even if this is only in your head.
reference group effects in food preference
female students claimed they disliked orange juice if other ingroup members did not like it.
also, people eat more or less popcorn/cookies if they believe that someone else just ate a lot or a little of the snack.
met welke soort norms zijn mastery en connectedness geassocieerd?
mastery = descriptive
connectedness = injunctive
agreement with in-group members most of the time…
fulfills the following motives:
- mastery
- connectedness
- valuing me and mine
need for mastery =
informational influence
-> adopt the group consensus because you think they are right
need for connectedness =
normative influence
-> adopt consensus to show your identification with the group
need for valuing me and mine =
influence from the valued in-group
-> adopt group consensus to feel good about self and group
waar leiden deze 3 vormen van needs toe
tot private conformity
group polarization
when the groups initial position becomes more extreme due to face-to-face group interaction
dus meer extreme
how is group polarization explained via superficial processing
- overt and subtle cues: exchange of views, body language, social identity -> cues for what their opinions are
- consensus is used as an heuristic -> what the group thinks, you think
- happy people avoid systematic processing
how does superficial reliance on consensus as a heuristic lead to extreme positions?
- average position moves to the extreme, minority position adopt to the majority consensus
- majority may even more more toward the extreme
how does systematic processing lead to group polarization?
leidt tot nog meer polarization, omdat mensen hun beliefs die ze al hebben erger versterken door er nog meer over na te denken.
- more arguments that favor this majority
- are discussed more
- seem more persuasive
- arguments are presented as more persuasive (als ze er zo confident over zijn, moet het wel kloppen….)
soms klopt consensus niet, want..
can rely on others positions, biases or public conformity.
3 manieren waarop consensus goes awry (groupthink!)
- consensus without consideration -> rely on consensus zonder te denken
- consensus without independence: contamination door bias (we denken: als verschillende mensen van verschillende perspectieven dezelfde mening hebben, moet het wel kloppen)
- consensus without acceptance: public conformity -> pluralistic ignorance
how do ingroups become more persuasive than outgroups: ingroups
- komt overeen met perspectief en judgement maar je ziet verschillen met andere dingen.
- can keep track of who said what
- argumenten lijken meer verschillend en ook independent
- arguments seem more persuasive
how do ingroups become more persuasive than outgroups: outgroups
- members all seem alike/the same
- cannot keep track of who said what
- arguments all seem the same, suspect contamination
- arguments are unpersuasive
waar speelt pluralistic ignorance een grote rol in
social and health problems: smoking, drugs, eating unhealthy, alcohol, sex
group think =
when the desire to reach consensus dominates the desire for effective decision making
-> false norms are created, where people publicly agree with the norm despite their private doubt
which people are more likely to ignore information
when people work in groups (compared to working alone)
what happens when groups overestimate their abilities
reduces healthy debate, reduces seeking for external input
how can we prevent false consensus door consensus without consideration
- explore all alternatives
- open inquiry
- encourage different povs
how can we prevent false consensus door consensus without independence (contamination)
select groups in a diverse way
how can we prevent false consensus door consensus without acceptance
- group leaders geen invloed laten hebben
- encourage different povs
- public votes should be the exeption instead of the rule
when are the 3 forms of groupthink more likely
when powerful members state their opinion before the dicussion
self-censorship =
voluntary suppressing criticism and concerns (vooral doubtful members)
Doubting members engage in self-censorship, voluntarily suppressing their concerns and criticisms, whereas confident members might shield other members from unwelcome information that might destroy confidence in the consensus. Lack of independence among members’ views makes this situation worse. Groups whose members are very similar and who are very focused on “who we are and what we stand for”—as groups under threat often are—are particularly likely to fall prey to groupthink because they also share many biases
oke
bij wat voor soort groepen komt groupthink vaker
highly cohesive groups
oke dus de 3 manieren hoe groupthink ontstaan, en hoe je ze op kunt lossen
- no consideration -> consider all alternatives
- no independence -> reflect on bias, consider multiple perspectives
- no acceptance -> base the social norm on private acceptance, not public acceptance
but … exposure to minorities opinions can change (needs?)
- mastery
- belonginess
how can minorities succesfully sway the majority
- consistent
- balance between similarity and difference w/ majority
- offer alternative consensus
- promote systematic processing
both minorities and majorities can….
- induce systematic or heuristic processes
- satisfy mastery or connectedness
- induce public or private acceptance
what is the best way to promote effective group formation and consensus seeking
set up norms that make group members critical thinkers as a group, rather than individual members
When group members are united behind norms of seeking consensus with systematic consideration of alternatives, independence from contamination, and the conviction of private acceptance, the desire for mastery and for connectedness work together to produce a valid consensus.
oke
exposure to a dissenting minority:
none = 70% conformity, dus gewoon agree
inconsistent = 35% conformity, dus een deel denkt meer kritisch maar
consistent = 15% conformity, dus mensen gaan meer kritisch nadenken als er een consistent minority is
(conformity = het eens zijn met mensen die overduidelijk het verkeerde antwoord zeiden. exposure to consistent minority tegen deze ‘incorrect’ majority leidt dus tot meer mensen die een andere mening hebben dan de incorrect majority)
waar leidt minority dissent ook tot
meer creativiteit
3 ways minorities can sway majority, in kort en met resultaat er bij
- consistent alternative consensus -> consensus
- represent diversity -> different perspectives
- systematic processing -> private consensus
experiment independent vs group chances of solving murder mystery
als individual members encouraged werden om kritisch & systematisch te denken, juist negatief effect. maar als de hele groep encouraged werd -> juist meer kans om mystery op te lossen.
conservatism
majority opinions usually attract more supporters, and are hard to change
welke norm hoort bij een kado geven en daarna een request maken
norm of reciprocity
welke norm hoort bij door in the face technique
norm of reciprocity
welke norm hoort bij low balling technique
norm of commitment
