Social influence and conformity

• social influence

  norms = attitudes and beh that define grp membership and differentiate between grps

  social influence = process whereby attitudes and behaviours are influenced by the real or implied presence of other ppl

  compliance = superficial, public change in behaviour and expressed attitudes in response to requests, coercion or grp pressure

  • short term doesnt effect us socially
• obedience

  compliance w anothers authority

  STANLEY MILGRAM (1974)

  used deception -> ppt cant alter beh

  teach, p, and learner, c.

  t administered shocks after wrong answer

  electric shock got progressively larger

  other social psychologist predicted ppt wouldnt go over 300 volts
• agentic state

  MILGRAM (1963) ppl socialised to respect authority

  • unquestioning obedience in which personal responsibility transferred to the person giving orders
  • handing moral authority to another
• factors inf obedience

  sunk cost fallacy, immediacy of victim, immediacy of authority
• sunk cost fallacy

  have to go all the way, if we stop we have to admit we did smth wrong. attempt to make sense of previous beh. applies to nice beh as well
• immediacy of victim

  MILGRAM (1974) conformity rates:

  • when victim wasnt seen or heard, 100% - much easier to dehumanise
  • victim visible, 40%
  • when t had to hold l hand down, 30% - critiqued, more likely ppt found out its fake

  increased immediacy of victim may prevent dehumanisation of victim
• immediacy of authority figure

  conformity rates:

  • when experimenter said instructions via phone, 20.5%
  • no orders given at all, 2.5%
  • presence of 2 disobedient peers, 10%
  • presence of 2 obedient peers, 92.5% - merges obedience and conformity
• conformity

  change in beh and attitudes due to grp pressure

  social inf can operate in a less direct manner, through conformity or grp norms
• convergence effect

  SHERIF (1936)

  linked with grp norms - the need to be certain that a beh is correct and appropriate

  • use understanding of ppl arnd to be accurate
• frame of reference

  middle positions perceived to be more correct than fringe positions

  ALLPORT (1924) ppl in grps give less extreme judgements of odours and weight in grps in comparison to when alone
• SHERIF (1936)

  visual effect, point of light in dark room. point is 'moving', not rlly, it is eyes oscillating

  order:

  1. alone -> grp -> grp -> grp
  2. grp -> grp -> grp -> alone

  • in fourth session had similar inches of movement. once norm established, we continue to use it, to be more accurate

  task may have been considered ambiguous. ppt likely felt uncertain abt lvl of movement
• ASCH (1951)

  grps of 7-9 ppt

  only 1 was acc ppt

  confederates gave incorrect responses 12 trials and correct on 6 trials
• ASCH (1951): results

  ctrl grp -> 1% incorrect

  • confirmation of task unambiguity

  25% didnt conform at all

  50% conformed on 6 or more trials

  5% conformed to all 12 trials

  33% overall conformity
• why did ppt conform?

  conform to others as we believe they have a more accurate understanding

  feelings of uncertainty and self doubt

  • self consciousness and anxiety

  many ppt knew they saw differently to grp response

  • some doubted themselves
  • others believed they were correct but didnt want to stand out (SELF PRESENTATIONAL CONCERNS)

  neuroimaging data show stronger amygdala response to nonconformity (BERNS ET AL., 2005)
• variations of asch's task

  ppt write response 12.5% conformity

  DEUTSCH & GERARD (1955) 3 conditions

  • respond f2f w 3 confederates
  • respond anonymously and privately
  • respond f2f w confederates and told to be as accurate as possible

  subjective certainty also manipulated:

  • 1/2 responded w stimuli present
  • 1/2 responded after stimuli removed (increased uncertainty)

  conformity higher overall when stimuli removed
• individual and grp characteristics of conformity: lack of expertise

  lack of expertise may increase conformity

  SISTRUCK & MCDAVID (1971)

  male and females faced grp pressure in identifying various stimuli:

  • typically masc
  • typically fem
  • neutral

  conformity higher when gender was identify the opposite sex stimuli
• individual and grp characteristics of conformity: cultural variation

  BOND & SMITH (1996) meta-analysis of Asch paradigm in 17 countries

  ppl who score high on HOFSTEDE (1980) collectivism scale conform more

  • conformity may be more favourable in collectivist cultures
  • acts as a form of social glue
• situational factors in conformity

  group size

  • ASCH (1952) - as unanimous grp increased, conformity increased

  group unanimity

  • conformity rates significantly reduced if majority not unanimous
  • presence of a correct report - reduces conformity from 33% to 5.5%
• processes of conformity

  informational influence

  • accepting information from another as evidence abt reality
  • affects us when we are uncertain: ambiguity and social disagreement
• processes of conformity 2

  normative influence

  • conforming to the positive expectation of others to gain approval or avoid social disapproval
• How does the presence of others affect eating behavior?

  It may alter perceptions of excessive eating.
• Who conducted research on social eating behavior in 2003?

  Herman, Roth, and Polivy
• What concern do many people have regarding their eating habits?

  Being seen as eating excessively
• What negative stereotypes are often applied to excessive eaters?

  They are viewed negatively by society.
• How do eaters manage perceptions of their food intake?

  By ensuring it is not seen as excessive.
• What social behavior might people engage in to avoid negative perceptions of eating?

  Social comparison
• What does the Inhibitory Norm Model of eating suggest?

  • Presence of others influences eating behavior
  • Concern about being perceived as excessive
  • Negative stereotypes affect eaters' choices
• What did Roth, Herman, Polivy, and Pliner study in 2001?

  Self-presentational conflict in social eating
• What does the Dual-Process model of social influence suggest?

  It may oversimplify social influence dynamics.
• What is Social Identity Theory focused on?

  Group membership and social comparison
• What is Referent Informational Influence?

  Pressure to conform to a defining group norm.
• What is the significance of minority influence in social psychology?

  It challenges the idea of social homogeneity.
• What did Moscovici and Facheux (1972) question about Asch's study?

  Whether it truly measured minority influence.
• What are the three modalities of social influence identified?

  Conformity, normalization, and innovation.
• What is a key factor for effective minority influence?

  Consistency across time and context.
• How does consistency affect minority influence?

  It disrupts majority norms and creates doubt.
• What did Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux (1969) study?

  Color perception with confederates.
• What is the difference between majority and minority influence according to Conversion Theory?

  Majority leads to public compliance; minority leads to private change.
• What is the Conversion Effect?

  Sudden internal change in majority attitudes.
• What did Moscovici and Personnaz (1980) investigate?

  Influence of a confederate on color perception.