1PP.Week 6. Social Influence.Majority Influence.pdf
Transcript
Week 6 Social Influence 1: Majority Influence DR EMINA SUBASIC Overview u Early explanations of social influence u Sherif’s auto-kinetic studies u Asch’s conformity research u Social comparison theory (Festinger) u Normative and Informational Influence (Deutsch & Gerard) u...
Week 6 Social Influence 1: Majority Influence DR EMINA SUBASIC Overview u Early explanations of social influence u Sherif’s auto-kinetic studies u Asch’s conformity research u Social comparison theory (Festinger) u Normative and Informational Influence (Deutsch & Gerard) u Obedience research (Milgram) u Two early explanations for social influence: u Rational process of information processing (e.g., Sherif) u Social pressures and ‘irrational’ acceptance of others’ judgments (e.g., Asch) Theories of u Dual process theories - suggest two Social distinct processes by which social influence might occur. Influence u Social Comparison Theory (Festinger) u Normative vs. Informational Influence (Deutsch & Gerard) u [Minority Influence (Moscovici) - next week!] u "Social influence refers to a change in judgements, opinions and attitudes of an individual as a Definition result of being exposed to the judgements, opinions and attitudes of other individuals" (van Avermaet, 1996, p. 488). Majority Influence The tendency for people to conform to group norms as represented by the majority of group members. Sherif (1936) People have a need to be accurate, certain, and correct. People use others as a frame of reference that they can use to make their own judgements more accurate. The average position in any frame of reference is usually regarded as the most correct. Sherif (1936) Hence, people adjust their own positions to converge on a group's average position (norm). Participants were seated in a dark room and presented with a single stationary light. Sherif's Participants were told (1936) that at a certain point Autokinetic the experimenter would move the light. Study Participants were asked to estimate how much the light moved. u (A) Individual judgements first condition: Participants made 100 judgements alone. On subsequent days, they made Sherif's judgements in groups of two or (1936) three people. Autokinetic (B) Group judgements first Study u condition: Participants made group judgements first followed by individual judgements. The Group Judgements Condition Results: (A) Individual Judgements-First Condition Group judgements: As trials progressed, individuals Individual judgements: As changed their personal trials progressed, individuals norm to converge on a converged on personal group norm, which was the norms. average of the personal norms. Results for Individual Judgements First Condition (based on Sherif, 1936) 8 Estimate of movement 7 6 (inches) 5 Participant 1 Participant 2 4 Participant 3 3 2 1 0 Alone Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Group judgements (B) Group Judgements-First Condition The group norm that One study found that emerged in the group participants conformed to judgements phase the group estimate when influenced the judgements they participated by that participants made themselves a year later when they were on their (Rohrer, Baron, Hoffman, & own (later on). Swander, 1954). Asch’s Conformity Research Solomon Asch argued that participants in Sherif's studies conformed to the group norm because the stimuli were ambiguous. Asch wanted to show that conformity is less likely to occur when the stimuli are unambiguous. Participants took part in groups of seven. Participants were shown two cards, one Asch – with one standard line on it and one with three comparison lines on it. Conformity Research Participants were asked to announce aloud which of the three comparison lines was closest in length to the standard line. The other six 'participants' were confederates of the experimenter who were instructed to give the incorrect response on some of the trials. Stimuli Used in Asch's Conformity Studies A B C Standard line Spot the Real Participant! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker! Hmm! Line A?! Do I Need Better Glasses? 75% of participants conformed (i.e., gave the same incorrect response as the confederates) on at least one trial. 50% conformed on 6 or more Results trials. 5% conformed on all 12 focal trials. Average conformity rate = 33% Majority of participants: "My perceptions might have been incorrect". Post-experimental Large minority of participants: "My perceptions were correct, Feedback but I did not want to stand out". Small minority of participants: "I agreed with the group's perceptions". Comparison Between Sherif and Asch Studies Sherif Asch Correct answer is ambiguous Correct answer is unambiguous Participants are calm Participants are anxious Mainly informational influence Mainly normative influence? Private acceptance of group Public compliance with group norm norm Who Conforms?: (a) Gender Differences in Conformity Early research suggested that women conform more than men (Crutchfield, 1955). However, a meta-analytic review found only a slight tendency for women to conform more than men, and this effect may be due to a gender bias in (male) researchers' methodology (Eagly & Carli, 1981). (b) Personality Differences in Conformity People who have a strong need for social approval tend to conform more (Snyder & Ickes, 1985). However, the situation seems to be more important than personality traits. (c) Cross-Cultural Differences in Conformity Bond and Smith (1996) conducted a meta- analysis on 133 replications of Asch's (1951) study in the USA and 16 other countries. They found that the conformity effect was lower among participants from individualist cultures (e.g., USA, Western Europe) than among participants from collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, Brazil, Africa). Variations in Conformity (a) Group Size (Asch, 1955) 40 Percentage of errors 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Number of people disagreeing with the participant (b) Social Support and Unanimity (Asch, 1955) Asch (1955) found that the presence of only one confederate who agreed with the participant's response led to a dramatic decrease in conformity (33% ⇨ 5.5%). Even the presence of a confederate who gave a different incorrect response led to a large decrease in conformity. Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1950, 1954) uPeople are motivated to hold beliefs that are correct and about which they can feel confident. uTo determine the correctness of their beliefs they can do one of two things: uPhysical reality testing (i.e. Men taller than women? Measure the height.) uNo need to rely on others u‘Rational’ and therefore preferred… Social Comparison Theory – cont. But… § Most judgments cannot be tested physically § Have to rely on social reality testing § Feedback from relevant others (a reference group) § Reduces uncertainty about the nature of reality. § E.g. Etiquette at ‘fancy’ dinner parties? Look at what others are doing. According to Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory: u Social comparison helps us make sense of social reality Social reality u More likely to compare self with others when uncertain. testing u Compare self with similar others u Social reality testing creates conformity because people seek to reduce disagreement between themselves and similar others Critique of Social Comparison Theory – Deutch & Gerard, 1955 u But why did people conform in the Asch (1955) study, where physical reality testing was possible? A B C X u Maybe there are two separate processes (normative vs. informational)? Normative and Informational Influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) Informational influence u Key goal: Accuracy of perceptions u Seeking factual information from experts u Similarto social reality testing – turn to others with relevant knowledge, expertise, etc. Why do People Conform?: (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) (a)Informational Influence People want to be correct and accurate. They see the group norm as a reliable indicator of the correct response. They conform because they believe that their subjective perception is incorrect and that the group's perception is more accurate. Leads to public conformity (compliance) and private conformity (acceptance) of the group norm. Normative and Informational Influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) Normative influence u Key goal: gain approval and avoid rejection. u Relying on compliance – conforming to others’ despite private disagreement u Related to ideas of 'peer-group pressure’ and ‘negative’ influence of social groups. Why do people conform? (b) Normative Influence People want to be liked by others. They see the group norm as a standard against which they will be judged by the rest of the group as being likable or dislikable. They conform because, although they believe that their subjective perception is correct, they consider it more important to go along with the rest of the group in order to gain social approval. Only leads to public conformity (compliance) with the group norm. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) study: u Similar to the Asch paradigm (i.e., experimental procedure) IV1: Nature of responses: Deutsch & u uResponses given publicly with other Gerard confederates present (similar to Asch) (1955) – uResponses accurate public, but group goal to be Research uResponses private (i.e. anonymous) Evidence u IV2: Certainty of the ‘physical reality’: uStimuli present throughout uStimuli absent (shown briefly, then removed) Deutsch & Gerard (1955) Why not zero? French and Raven (1959) Model of Social Influence Six bases of power (power = capacity to influence others): u Expert (e.g. superior knowledge) u Informational (e.g. strong argument) Internalisation u Referent (e.g. respect, admiration, attraction) (Private Acceptance) u Legitimate (e.g. position of legit. authority) u Reward (e.g. capacity to reward) Public u Coercive (e.g. capacity to punish) Compliance Common theme: u Informational influence = true influence Private attitude change. Limitations of u dual process u Normative influence = mere theories compliance with social norms u Public change only to appear desirable/ avoid sanctions. Turner (1987, 1991, 2005) questioned this distinction because: 1. It over-emphasises the role of surveillance Limitations of u We conform to group standards dual process even when alone (residual conformity) theories 1. It downplays the role of group belongingness: u We don’t conform to all groups. 42 Milgram’s (Dis)Obedience Research u Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Experiment u Participants recruited under the guise of completing a study on memory at Yale University. Obedience u Two people show up at the lab – one is a true to Authority participant, the other a confederate. u A stern experimenter in a lab coat explains that the study was interested in the effect of punishment on learning. Obedience to Authority u The true participant is always ‘randomly assigned’ to be the ‘teacher’. u The ‘teacher’ is asked to read word pairs to the ‘learner’ (a confederate) who is hooked up to electric shock leads. u The ‘teacher’ is instructed to administer electric shocks at each mistake – and shock intensity increases with each mistake by (15 à 450 volts) u Q: How far will they go? Milgram 1963 – Results u Comparison between predicted and actual levels of shock given to a victim. MILGRAM (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience – Findings MILGRAM (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience – Findings “No subject stopped prior to administering Shock Level 20. At this level — 300 volts —the victim kicks on the wall and no longer provides answers to the teacher’s multiple- choice questions.” MILGRAM (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience – Findings Of the 40 subjects, 5 refused to obey the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. Four more subjects administered one further shock, and then refused to go on. Two broke off at the 330-volt level, and 1 each at 345, 360, and 375 volts… MILGRAM (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience – Findings Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end, proceeding to punish the victim until they reached the most potent shock available on the shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session… What was it like being a participant? “Although obedient subjects continued to administer shocks, they often did so under extreme stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks beyond the 300-volt level, and displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed. After the maximum shocks had been delivered, and the experimenter called a halt to the proceedings, many obedient subjects heaved sighs of relief, mopped their brows, rubbed their fingers over their eyes, or nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook their heads, apparently in regret. Some subjects had remained calm throughout the experiment, and displayed only minimal signs of tension from beginning to end.” Milgram, 1963 Milgram’s Obedience Experiment u Why did Milgram’s participants comply with the orders of the ‘experimenter’ or refused to do so? u Is Milgram’s work relevant today? Are people more or less obedient to authorities? u What ethical issues does this study raise (for you personally, and for social psychology as a discipline)? u Legitimacy of the entire ‘exercise’ u Yale University u Scientific importance of the study u Competence of personnel (‘the experimenter’ knows what he’s doing) u A sense of obligation – norm to complete the task How Milgram u Ambiguity – competing demands of the explained his experimenter and the victim (no-win situation) findings? u Rapid and gradual increase in punishment levels (intensity of shock) – unforeseen at the start of the experiment. u Agentic state: A frame of mind thought by Milgram to characterise unquestioning obedience, in which people as agents transfer personal responsibility to the person giving orders. “I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, shuddering wreck, who was rapidly approaching nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lobe Willing and twisted his hands. At one point he participants? pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered ‘Oh God, lets stop it’. And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed to the end.” Milgram (1963) u Proximity of the victim u If the victim could only be heard, 65% of teachers went to the limit What factors (original paradigm). If they had influence visual contact, the number declined. However, even in those obedience? conditions when the ‘teacher’ had to keep the ‘learner’s hand on the – ‘shock plate’, 30% continued to Variations to administer shocks up to 450V. the Proximity of the authority figure Procedure u u When the experimenter delivered (1974) instructions by phone, only 20.5% continued to obey. u Legitimacy of authority: u When the experiment was conducted in a run down office building, obedience dropped to 48% u Presence of Others: Factors that u If other ‘teachers’ (confederates) were present and COMPLIED, influence obedience soared to 92% full compliance. obedience – u If other ‘teachers’ REFUSED to comply, only 10% complied fully (went up to cont. 450V). u If this sounds familiar, it’s because we are talking (again) about how group norms shape people’s behaviour u Most people ‘cave in’ when under the combined pressure from above (authority) and subtle pressure from around us. Relevant to contemporary and historical Milgram in u examples of ‘ordinary people’ committing extraordinary acts of cruelty to others (e.g. Retrospect Holocaust). u “Dark side” of human nature u Paints a bleak picture of what people are like u Social influence processes equated with something that is negative and extreme u ‘Obedience’ as a basic social process – and sometimes necessary for society to function (e.g. emergencies, natural disasters) u Ethical issues – contributed to the end of ‘high impact’ social psychological research. u Baumrind (1964) - Harm to participants does not justify benefit to knowledge. - Participant in a relationship of dependence and trust with the experimenter – validity of findings? Ethical Issues u Milgram (1964) u Participants carefully debriefed – both immediately after the study and get a report summarising findings. u Mail survey – 84% glad to have been in the experiment; 15% neutral,
