Conformity PDF Lecture Notes

Dr. Sam Fairlamb Conformity Department of Psychology The Psychology Debrief @thepsychdebrief @thepsychologydebrief Learning aims 1. Different types of conformity ▪ Describe some of...

Dr. Sam Fairlamb Conformity Department of Psychology The Psychology Debrief @thepsychdebrief @thepsychologydebrief Learning aims 1. Different types of conformity ▪ Describe some of the active and passive ways that conformity occurs in our everyday lives ▪ Compare and contrast informational social influence and normative social influence ▪ Summarise Sherif’s and Asch’s experiments and findings 2. Situational factors affecting conformity ▪ Summarise variables that affect majority social influence ▪ Outline the situational variables that influence the extent to which we conform Learning aims (part 2) 3. Minority influence ▪ Summarise variables that affect minority social influence 4. Personal and cultural differences in conformity ▪ Consider some individual differences in conformity ▪ Research about relationship between culture and conformity ▪ Explain the concept of psychological reactance and describe how and when it might occur  Definitions How people affect one another, including changes in attitudes, beliefs, Social influence feelings and behaviours resulting from the comments, actions, or even the mere presence of others Do as others do Change in beliefs, opinions, and behaviours as a result of explicit or implicit pressure (real or Conformity imagined) from others Do as others wantCompliance Do as others command Compliance Obedience In an unequal power Responding favourably to an relationship, submitting to explicit request by another the demands of the person in person authority Everyday conformity ▪ We often adopt the actions and attitudes of the people around us 1. Different types of conformity 6 Automatic mimicry ▪ Automatic Mimicry: Beliefs/behaviours become similar to others around us in a spontaneous and automatic sense, without any obvious intent of one person to change the other Chartrand, T. L., & Van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 219-274. Automatic mimicry: the evidence Participants - two 10 min sessions with a confederate Rubbed his/her face Continuously shook his/her foot Number of instances per minute Participants were videotaped 0.8 Participant rubs face 0.7 Findings 0.6 Participant shakes foot 0.5 Participants mimicked behaviour of 0.4 0.3 confederate 0.2 0.1 Participants did not consciously notice 0 behaviour of confederate Confederate rubs Confederate shakes face foot Chartrand & Bargh (1999) Chartrand, T. L., & Van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 219-274. Mimicry: why? ▪ Ideomotor action – phenomenon whereby merely thinking about behaviour makes performing it more likely (James, 1890) ▪ Thinking about typing wrong letter on keyboard increases tendency to type that letter (Wegner, 1994) Chartrand, T. L., & Van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 219-274. Mimicry: why? ▪ Establishing a good interaction ▪ Prefer those who mimic actions, even when unaware that mimicking is taking place (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) ▪ We expect people to mimic, and can deplete self-regulatory resources when they do not (Dalton et al., 2010) ▪ People who have been mimicked are more prosocial (e.g. donations/helping/tipping; van Baaren et al., 2003, 2004) Chartrand, T. L., & Van Baaren, R. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 219-274. Sherif’s (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment ▪ Aim: demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous situation ▪ Method: autokinetic effect – visual illusion whereby the absence of reference points makes a stationary light appear to move. ▪ Number of trials, and estimated how much the light moved ▪ Tested alone, as well as in a group across several days Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-247). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Sherif’s (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment ▪ Findings: Individual-to-group Group-to-individual Participants started with personal norm, Participants converged on group norm, and but in groups converged on a group norm alone used group norm as personal guide Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-247). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Informational social influence ▪ In ambiguous situations - look to others for guidance (i.e. adopt a group norm) ▪ Informational social influence – change in opinions/behaviour when we conform to people who we believe have accurate info ▪ Occurs especially under heightened uncertainty ▪ Descriptive norm - perception of what most people do in a given situation (Cialdini et al., 1990) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-247). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.  Misperceived norms ▪ Sometimes we may misperceive norms when deciding how to behave ▪ Example: excessive drinking (Neighbors et al., 2007, 2009) ▪ Students overestimate descriptive norm for student drinking → predicts how much one personally drinks ▪ Providing accurate information regarding drinking behaviour reduces consumption Neighbors, C., Lee, C. M., Lewis, M. A., Fossos, N., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes … ?. Journal of studies on alcohol & drugs, 68(4), 556-565. Asch’s (1951) Conformity Experiment ▪ Method ▪ Male college students- ‘testing visual abilities’ ▪ Match up a single line to another line of the same length ▪ Confederates instructed on some trials to all provide the same incorrect answer Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-249). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Asch’s (1951) Conformity Experiment ▪ Findings ▪ 75% gave at least one incorrect response when it was their turn ▪ 37% of the overall responses were conforming ▪ Large variation: 25% never conformed; 5% conformed on all trials Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-249). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Asch’s (1951) Conformity Experiment: Post- experiment answers Why did participants conform? Why did participants not conform? ▪ All reported experiencing uncertainty and self-doubt ▪ Some felt entirely confident ▪ Some believed that majority in their own judgment were wrong, but went along ▪ Some felt emotionally to avoid being ridiculed affected but guided by a belief in individualism ▪ Some believed that the majority must be right, as they were the only one to see the task differently Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 246-249). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Modified Asch Experiment ▪ Face-to-face: three confederates who make incorrect judgments ▪ Face-to-face and group goal: provided explicit group goal to be as accurate as possible ▪ Private and anonymous: isolated in cubicle and answer privately - lights flashed up to display answer of confederates ▪ Uncertainty manipulation ▪ Half the participants respond while the stimuli were present ▪ Half respond when the stimuli is removed Deutsch & Gerard (1955) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 249-250). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Modified Asch Experiment ▪ Findings ▪ Decreasing uncertainty and decreasing group pressure reduced conformity ▪ People still conformed 23% even when uncertainty was low and responses were private and anonymous Deutsch & Gerard (1955) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 249-250). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Normative social influence ▪ A process where people conform to avoid disapproval and other social sanctions (rejection, isolation) ▪ When normative social influence occurs we conform to injunctive norms – socially accepted beliefs about what we do or should do in particular contexts (Cialdini, 1993; Sherif, 1936) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 257-258). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Informational versus Normative Sherif: Informational Influence Asch: Normative Influence ▪ Difficult task; unsure of answer ▪ Clear/easy task; sure of answer ▪ Ambiguous ▪ Not ambiguous ▪ Use others’ response to form ▪ Own beliefs clearly conflict an opinion with those of the group ▪ Believe what others say and ▪ Conform outside, not inside internalise it ▪ Change is superficial (i.e., no ▪ Involves real opinion change change to private opinion) SCAN ME Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 257-258). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Take-home messages ▪ Social influence creates conformity ▪ Influence can be passive (automatic mimicry) or more active ▪ We conform to gain accurate knowledge (informational social influence) and to avoid being rejected by others (normative social influence) 2. Situational factors affecting conformity 23 Situational factors 1. Group size 2. Group unanimity 3. Expertise and status Group size ▪ As the group size increases, conformity increases ▪ Asch replications – varied number of confederates. Larger groups increased conformity (e.g., incorrect answer) ▪ Increasing group size increases both informational and normative conformity ▪ If more people express an opinion - seems more valid ▪ Being different will be harder when the majority is bigger ▪ The effect of group size diminishes as the group grows larger Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 252-253). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Group size ▪ The effect of group size diminishes as the group grows larger Asch (1951) incorrect answers on line Milgram et al. (1969) percentage of people task who looked up/stopped on street Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 252-253). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Group unanimity ▪ Consistency/unanimity of group even more important than size Percent Unanimous ▪ When one confederate gives correct conformity majority 60 answer - conformity dropped to 5% One dissenter 50 ▪ Even when confederate gives a 40 different wrong answer 30 ▪ Presence of an ‘ally’ weakens both 20 informational (“Maybe I’m not crazy 10 after all”) and normative (“At least 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I’ve got someone to stand by me”) Trials social influence Adapted from Asch (1956) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 252-253). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Expertise and status ▪ Expertise primarily affects informational social influence – believe they have correct information ▪ Status mainly affects normative social influence – we care about what they think 3. Minority influence 29 Majority influence ▪ Majority influence occurs when the beliefs, attitudes, and values held by the larger number of individuals in the current social group prevail Minority influence ▪ Minority influence occurs when the beliefs held by the smaller number of individuals in the current social group prevail Moscovici et al. (1969) blue/green study ▪ Study about “colour perception” ▪ 36 blue slides (various shades) - state colour out loud ▪ A minority (2) group of confederates, majority were the participants ▪ Confederates either: ▪ Consistent-minority condition: gave unusual response (green) on every trial ▪ Inconsistent-minority condition: gave the unusual response (green) on two-thirds of trials Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 263-264). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Moscovici et al. (1969) blue/green study ▪ Presence of a consistent minority influenced judgments ▪ 32% of participants said green at least once ▪ 18% of responses overall said green ▪ Internalised minority influence when tested privately Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 263-264). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. The power of the minority ▪ Minorities can influence majorities, provided they give consistent, unanimous responses ▪ Able to produce strong and lasting attitude change – true private acceptance – rather than simple public compliance ▪ Conform to minorities because they think they are right, not because they think it is socially acceptable ▪ Minority groups can lead to majority engaging in more fuller, divergent and creative thinking about topics ▪ Minority influence is strongest when it is consistent but not rigid or inflexible Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 263-264). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.  Minority influence: flexibility is the key ▪ Compensation for ski-lift injury – participants matched with other participants who indicated similar level of payout ▪ Groups of 4: including 1 confederate who either: ▪ Remain consistent with opinion throughout ($50k) ▪ Compromise early ($50k → $100k) ▪ Compromise late ($50k → 100k) ▪ After deliberating – asked in private to indicate compensation, and make decisions on similar cases Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987) Nemeth, C., & Brilmayer, A. G. (1987). Negotiation versus influence. European journal of social psychology, 17(1), 45-56.  Minority influence: flexibility is the key Control Compensation Control Compensation 260 Consistent 260 Consistent 250 Early compromise 250 Early compromise Late compromise 240 240 Late compromise 230 230 220 220 210 210 200 200 Ski case Similar cases ▪ Both early/late compromise - effective at inducing public concession ▪ Consistent/late compromise - effective at inducing private change Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987) Nemeth, C., & Brilmayer, A. G. (1987). Negotiation versus influence. European journal of social psychology, 17(1), 45-56. Take home messages ▪ The characteristics of the social situation, including the number of people in the majority and the unanimity of the majority, have a strong influence on conformity ▪ Other factors that may increase conformity include whether other people are expert or have a high status ▪ Both majority and minority groups are capable of social influence, but do so in different ways 4. Individual and cultural differences in conformity 38 Individual differences ▪ Several individual difference variables impact levels of conformity e.g., ▪ Low self-esteem (Stang, 1972) ▪ High need for social approval (Strickland & Crowne, 1962) ▪ Low IQ (Crutchfield, 1955) ▪ High anxiety (Crutchfield, 1955) ▪ Feelings of inferiority/low status (Raven & French, 1958) Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. (2017). Social psychology (7th Ed, pp 254). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.  Cultural differences ▪ Bond and Smith (1996) – analysed results of 133 studies that had used Asch’s line-judging task in 17 different countries ▪ Conformity was greater in more collectivistic than individualistic countries % of Ads using theme US ▪ Kim and Markus (1999) 100 Korea 90 80 ▪ Americans (vs. East Asian) more 70 60 likely to pick ‘unique’ pen choice 50 40 30 ▪ American vs Korean magazine 20 10 themes 0 Uniqueness Conformity Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin, 119(1), 111-137. Psychological reactance ▪ Method ▪ Toilet stalls with different signs ▪ “Do NOT write on the walls!” ▪ “Please, do not write on the walls” ▪ Findings ▪ More graffiti was observed on the first sign than the second sign Pennebaker & Sanders (1976) Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281-300. Psychological reactance ▪ Reactance - motivational state that resists social influence (Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006) ▪ Reactance aroused when ability to choose behaviour to engage in is eliminated or threated with elimination, and we lose a sense of freedom and autonomy Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281-300. Take home messages ▪ Situational influences may make people conducive to conformity, but individual differences also influence conformity ▪ Conformity to social norms is more likely in collectivistic than in individualistic cultures ▪ Psychological reactance occurs when people feel that freedom/choice is eliminated/threatened. This may increase resistance to conformity Is conformity a good or a bad thing? Bad Good Neutral ▪ Understanding social influence and compliance is useful to many aspects of human behaviour that will be touched upon within the degree e.g., ▪ Group Psychology (PS1030/PS2030) ▪ Milgram’s study of obedience (PS2030) ▪ Propaganda and Persuasion (PS3090) What did we learn? ▪ Definitions surrounding conformity, and ways in which conformity can occur (e.g., informational vs. normative) ▪ What sort of situational variables may impact majority influence, as well as minority influence ▪ What sort of individual and cultural differences may impact one’s likelihood to conform or resist conforming