Social Influence 1.Discuss factors that impact conformity

Objectives CONFORMITY –Evaluate research on conformity to group norms. –Discuss factors influencing conformity COMPLIANCE –Discuss the use of compliance techniques Conformity, Compliance, Obedience –Evaluate the role of social influence on behavior

Social Influence Definition –A change in behavior caused by real or imagined pressure from others –Social persuasion: change in private attitudes and beliefs but NOT behavior change Categories of Social Influence –Conformity –Compliance –Obedience ***Social pressure increases***

Obedience Changing one’s behavior in response to a directive from an authority figure –Boss says you need to work overtime –Teacher tells you that you need to be quiet What would you do if someone on the street told you that you need to be quiet?

Compliance Changing one’s behavior in response to a direct request –“C’mon, have a beer and forget studying” –“Please wash your hands before leaving” Requester need not be physically present

Conformity Changing one’s behavior to match the actions of others, or fit in with those around us –How do you decide what to wear to a party? –What will make you decide to go home and change once you got there? Theories –Informational Social Influence –Normative Social Influence –Referent Informational Influence

Conformity

Informational Social Reference –Use other people’s comments and actions to determine what is right, proper or effective Humans want to be right Application to Sherif –The light DID NOT MOVE Appearance of movement is uncertain and ambiguous –MORE influenced by others Sherif’s Theory

Asch’s Theory Normative Social Influence –Avoid standing out, negatively, in the eyes of everyone else –AVOID Disapproval Harsh judgments Social sanctions –Want to adhere to the subgroups norms that we value

Referent Informational Influence Conformity impacted by group identification –Combine Sherif and Asch Why? –Increase in-group similarity –Increases out-group differences Focuses on cultural norms as a factor impacting conformity

Bulimia and Social Influence Christian Crandall, 1988 –Method: Survey & Correlational –AIM: impact of social influence on the rate of bulimia –Conclusion: more bulimic her friends were, the more bulimic she was likely to be Data showed two scenarios –In-Group normative Differed  less likely to be popular More binge eating  more popular

Gender & Conformity People more loyal to their public decision than their private –Men conform less in public than women do –Why? Socialized independence Men more likely to list themselves as politically independent Self-Esteem –Men: unique and independent –Women: connect them to members of a group

Roles SOCIAL GROUPS –Families, teams, church groups, work groups, classes –We occupy a position within each group SOCIAL ROLES –Patterns of behavior for a social position –Ascribed  assigned, not under your control –Achieved  attained voluntarily or with special effort

Cults Purpose  conform to a group –Suppress individuality Heaven’s Gate, 1997 –39 members committed suicide in March 1997 –Their spirit would be taken away in a spaceship –How did they do this? Disassociate with family and friends Only spend time with group Consult group before making any decision Even discounted evidence

Factors Impacting Conformity Situational Factors: Group Size & Group Unanimity Cultural Norms Polarization –Risky Shift –SLT –SIT Groupthink Reference pages

Group Size –Group size is important, up to a certain point Group Unanimity –Social support Supporting confederate or naïve participant –Reduced errors from 35% to 5.5% –Works even if the “supporter” is more wrong than the majority Breaks group unanimity

Cultural norms Bond & Smith, 1996 –Meta-analysis of follow-up Asch research –Collectivists showed higher conformity Belgium  15% Fiji  58% –Conformity was higher if the majority was larger

Berry, 1967 Aim: investigate how culture and conformity are related Method: Cultural comparison experiment –Culture: comparing two cultures (IV) –Experiment: Asch line test (DV) Participants –Temne Culture (Sierra Leone)  agriculture –Inuits (Baffin Islands in Canada)  Fishing & hunting Results –Temne: very high conformity Work together to feed the whole community –Inuits: very low conformity Hunt & fish alone Implications –Children learn at a young age what level of conformity is necessary to be part of a successful community

Kagitcibasi, 1984 Method: cross-cultural interviews of parents AIM: study socialization patterns, including conformity rates –Desirable traits  conformity to achieve them Procedure: questions focused on desirable behavior in children –Self-reliant/independent VS. obedient Results –Collectivist (Turkey & Indonesia) more obedient –Individualistic (US) more independent –Singapore & Thailand  emphasize self-reliance Implications –Modern society puts more emphasis on individual efforts and responsibilities

Polarization Group discussions tend to lead to riskier decisions –Why? Group polarization Group decisions are often more extreme that individual decisions –Cautious or risky Wallach et al., 1962 (Risky Shift) –Dilemmas decided in a group or individually Group decisions are more riskier (Polarization)

Social Comparison Theory Groups become normative influences –Why? Acceptance Shifts views towards the group norm What happens when someone wants to stand out –More extreme but still with the group norm (Polarization) –Result…. Group norm is more extreme than an individual’s position

Social Identity Theory Group norms are determined by ingroup members in relation to those held by outgroups –Norms will be polarized away from outgroups –Why? Positive distinctiveness

How does polarization impact conformity? Factors –Strong need for consensus –Preference, within group, to be on the same side –Ingroup defined by distinction from outgroup Normative and informational influences

Groupthink Janis defined group think as… –Thinking style in a cohesive group –Overrides appropriate decision-making procedures –Case Study, 1972 Analyzed Kennedy’s decision to invade Cuba

Outcomes of Groupthink Group cohesion –Suppress independent thinking –Downplay arguments Exaggerate success –Downplay risk Group superiority complex –Outgroups: negative and stereotypical Similar to polarization

Evaluation of Groupthink Experimental research is inconsistent –Case studies and content analysis is more consistent –Esser and Lindoerfer, 1989 Challenger explosion in 1986 –Content analysis Turner (SIT) says group think happens when the group is threatened

Conformity Research

Sherif, 1936 Muller-Lyer Illusion “frame of reference” Used Autokinetic Illusion –Tendency of a stationary point of light to appear to move in darkness Research –Ask people movement distance alone and in groups –Convergence of responses Even a year later

Evaluation of Sherif 1936 Strengths Generated a large amount of research –Very influential Shows how group norms are established Influence continues to influence a person’s judgment even when the influence is not present Limitations Ecological validity: Lab –Artificial and ambiguous Ethics –Not provided with informed consent BUT… not the norm at the time

Why conform? It’s just a stupid light? Asch, 1956 Hypothesis –predicted a decrease in conformity if a person’s judgment contradicted the group True, BUT –Why did some people still conform when they KNEW the group was wrong?

Asch, 1956 (Conformity) Method: Participant Observation Participants: college students in groups of eight… strangers –Control: no group pressure –Experimental group: before making their own judgments they heard 5 wrong responses (confederates)

Participant Response “I always disagree, darn it” –His response was different, but RIGHT and he felt bad –Led to doubt his own judgment “I was swayed by the confidence of the other members” –He conformed 11 of the 12 times –He thought he had fallen victim to some illusion

Evaluation of Asch, 1956 Strengths High degree of control –Clear cause and effect Often replicated –Reliable Conformity is universal –Rates vary across cultures Explain social and cultural norms Limitations Ecological validity US male students –Impacts generalization Only shows how a majority influences a minority, not the other way around Ethics –Deception –Exposed to embarrassing situation

Does Conformity Research Show Us Real Life? Research has a social and cultural bias –Sherif  USA Conformity was a social norm? Participants tend to conform LESS in Asch-like experiments –Conformity is context-dependent Change over time –Conformity patterns are different across cultures Cannot explain the minority influence