Social Psychology Lecture 13 Conformity and Social Influence Jane Clarbour Room: PS/B007 email: jc129 This is the first of two lectures….
Overview Looking at a series of experiments that studied the effects of social influence on both individuals and small groups processes of social influence: Majority influence (conformity & compliance) Minority influence (innovation) Conformity is the tendency to change one’s beliefs or behaviours in ways that are consistent with group standards (ie dress codes) Considers processes of social influence: Majority influence (conformity & compliance) Minority influence (innovation)
Objectives By the end of this lecture, you should be able to: Define what is meant by the 'fundamental attribution error' Describe the two major mechanisms through which groups influence their members Discuss why conformity is thought to result from exposure to a majority influence Discuss the characteristics a minority should have in order to exert influence over a majority Report criticisms of the dual-process model and alternative explanations of minority influence
Social influence What is meant by social influence? the extent to which an individual’s opinions, attitudes and judgments are influenced by being exposed to the views of others (Van Avermaet, 2001) This week we are approaching this topic as if from the perspective of the ‘Emperor’, focusing in the main on the effects of majority influence, and then we will turn this on its head and look at minority influence. Social influence not generally perceived by layman Social behaviour (e.g. acts of generosity, kindness or cruelty) considered reflection of: Personality or moral character rather than as a result of social influence The emperor's new clothes… Expectancy to view world same as everyone else
Fundamental attributional error The attribution error refers to the effect of the situation over & above the effect of personality Situational factors generally ignored Termed the ‘fundamental attributional error’
The development of group norms SHERIF (1936) Norm formation The development of group norms SHERIF (1936) Experimental paradigm based on ‘perception of motion’ ‘autokinetic effect’ paradigm A stationary but flickering single light in dark room optical illusion: appears to move – but doesn’t actually move Early experiments on social influence based on Shefif witnessing Greek soldiers brutally killing his Turkish friends. He emigrated to USA where researched the effects of groups on individuals
Sherif’s experimental design Private viewing task Private estimate of distance light moved over 100 trials (written down)- Ss formed personal consensus Group viewing task Public judgement (state out loud how far moved) Ss formed a group consensus This effect influenced Ss later judgement when subsequently asked to perform task again on their own View screen alone provided written estimate of how far light moved (100+ trials) Ss formed individual consensus over time of how far light moved (varied from Ss to Ss) Group viewing (100 trials) Public judgement When individual Ss asked to perform this task in groups by stating out loud how far light moved, they formed a group consensus This effect influenced Ss later judgement when subsequently asked to perform task again on their own Convergence of approximations of distance light moved as result of adoption of ‘common standard’ or shared norm When repeated with 2 groups (told optical illusion / not told), the effect remained only when not told The social influence only remained when the participants believed there was a correct answer No convergence in the group told it was an illusion
Why people conform Major mechanisms of how groups influence their members: Informational influence Value of other’s opinions Generally useful source of information Adaptive advantage Normative influence Need to be accepted by others Need to be approved of by others Fear of being disliked When people have to express judgment in PUBLIC they have 2 major concerns: They want to be right 2 sources of information: Perceptions of actual reality What others say They want to make a good impression on others Based on need to be accepted Need to be approved of by others
Social influence (1950’s): The Asch Conformity Experiments Ss shown a standard line This was then to be compared against 3 other lines which varied in length from the standard line by between ¼” and 13/4” A B C The participants KNEW which one was the same – so obvious!!
The Asch Conformity Experiments… Ss sits in groups varying from 7 – 9 people All asked to state which line is same as standard line Only 1 subject (rest are confederates) Each confederate makes false judgment in turn (out loud) Ss goes last in making judgment Control group (no confederates) Ss judgments made in private
Asch conformity experiment RESULTS: Experimental group Many Ss conformed to confederates false judgments on majority of trials Most caved in on a few trials Control group errors only about 2% Experimental group = about 30% errors
Changes in size of stimuli/group Asch increased the disparity in line length Larger disparities: 28% of experimental Ss still made errors Only 2% in control Asch decreased size of majority group 1 confederate to 1 Ss Abolished the group effect Even though confederate still went first.
Increased sized of minority… Introduced a partner 1 confederate (immed.) prior to Ss gave correct response Reduced majority effect to 13% of estimates Wrong minority of 1 (reverse of original experiment) I confederate gives wrong answer first but rest of group were Ss No majority effect
Variations of stimulus CRUTCHFIELD (1955) Studies of attitude “Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is proper for a society to suspend free speech when it feels threatened” 19% agreed with statement in private 58% agreed under pressure of group influence
Variations of stimulus CRUTCHFIELD (1955) Statement presented to Army leaders: “I doubt whether I would make a good leader” None agreed with statement in private 37% agreed under group pressure BUT When Ss were presented with judgements again in private most reverted to their pre-group answers No permanent attitude change as result of experiment So, more an effect of compliance than conformity
Critique of Asch experiments PERRIN & SPENCER (1980) Generalisability of Asch’s experiments? Failure to replicate ‘line’ experiments with British engineering, maths and chemistry students (6 confederates, 1 Ss) Only 1 out of 396 trials did a Ss join the erroneous majority. Stresses cultural rather than personality factors in explaining conformity Their conclusion: Cultural changes since 1950’s British Ss less conformist than US Ss in 1950’s ( i.e. US Ss called Asch ‘Sir’ in debriefing)
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies Sherif (moving light) Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer Reasonable to consider other’s views Participants later adopted social norms Conformity leads to internalization Asch (parallel lines) Participants knew there was a correct answer Conformity does not lead to internalization Suggests important differences between compliance and conformity
Minority influence Minority influence exemplified in TV play & film “Twelve Angry Men” 12 jurors have to decide over the guilt or innocence of a young man charged with the murder of his father. At outset of the play a single juror in the murder trial favours acquittal, other 11 jurors favour conviction By end of play unanimously ‘not guilty’ The minority (of 1) has influenced a majority jury
Minority influence and social change Most instances of minority influence or innovation cannot be accounted for by the same mechanisms that explain majority influence (Moscovici, 1976) Minorities are few in number No normative control over the majority More likely to be ridiculed by the majority than taken seriously Perceived as ‘weirdo’s. Seem to have access to the same informational and normative means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority Perceived as ‘weirdo’s. Seem to have access to the same informational and normative means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority BUT DON’T APPEAR TO USE THEM!
How do minorities influence others? Minorities influence others through their own behavioural style: Make their proposition clear at the outset Stick to their original proposition Withstand the majority influence
Behavioural Style Key factor in minority influence is consistency of behavioural style Consistent: Across time & situation (diachronic consistency) Across individuals (synchronic consistency) Strength of conviction “…It always indicates strong conviction, commitment. It shows that the minority believes in what it says and that its belief is fixed… Such singleness of purpose never fails to make an impression or to attract others. Everyone recognises that a consistent group knows what it wants, and will in no case give in to pressure” (Moscovici, 1985, pp. 28-29).
Assumptions of of minority influence Minority can create conflict Creates doubt and uncertainty Solution: cognitive change Minority can exploit majority’s dislike of conflict Influence is reciprocal Every group member both influences and is influenced, irrespective of status
‘Genetic’ model of social influence (Moscovici, 1976) Emphasis of ‘genetic’ model on growth and innovation as basic processes of social life Social influence doesn’t just adapt people to to a social system Continual production of system Continual change of system So, people don’t merely conform to systems – they actively participate in and change systems
Power and Influence (Moscovici, 1976) Confusion within earlier social influence research between power and influence Power is the basis of social influence Those who are dependent conform to those with power Influence is a process of submission to social pressure Power and influence are alternatives Coercion when can’t influence If can influence, don’t need power
Summary of Moscovici’s theoretical framework A consistent minority: Disrupts the established norm Produces doubt and uncertainty in majority Makes itself visible Focuses attention on itself Shows that there is an alternative point of view Demonstrates certainty, confidence & commitment to the alternative point of view Does not compromise or move (flexible, not rigid) Implies the only solution is for the majority to accept the minority view.
Differences between Asch and Moscovici Asch and Moscovici viewed conformity differently: Asch: conformity as a process to reduce cognitive uncertainty Moscovici: conformity as a process to reduce social conflict (and people don’t like conflict) Agree to avoid social conflict (nervous, anxious)
Experimental paradigm Moscovici et al (1969) Responses to consistent minority influence Told female Ss that in colour perception experiment Task was to judge the colour of a series of slides that would vary in intensity of colour and name this colour aloud when seated in a row of groups of 6. In each group there were 2 confederates (Control group of 6 naïve Ss).
Consistent minority influence Green Blue Green Blue Blue Blue Always responded ‘green’ throughout experiment The 2 confederates go first, stating the colour is ‘green’. The 4 Ss follow 8.42% Ss say slides green Control group only 0.25% green Confed 1 Confed 2 Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4
Percent of green responses given by majority Ss
Variations of theme: Inconsistent minority Discrimination task Sometimes said green in a random order, regardless of hue of the blue slide Discrimination task Ss had to also later complete 2nd task in private judging varied colour of slide from green-blue 3 blue and 3 green 10 blue/green Slides presented randomly
RESULTS (of subsequent experiments) Inconsistent minority 0nly 1.25% said green Also, changed order of confederates to being placed 1st and 4th No effect Discrimination task Ss who publicly kept to blue, privately stated sig more ambiguous blue/green slides as green So, a public vs. private distinction The impact of the consistent minority was greater at the perceptual than at the public, verbal level
Comparison of minority and majority influence Moscovici & Lage (1976) Blue-green paradigm, 6 conditions Controls respond to stimuli in writing (no group influence) Consistent minority (Same as before: 2 confederates, 4 Ss) Inconsistent minority Consistent minority of 1 (who went first: 1 confederate, 3 Ss) Unanimous consistent majority (who went first: 3 confederates, 1 Ss) Non-unanimous consistent majority (4 confederates, 2 Ss, varied order) Moscovici & Lage (1976) extended and replicated the earlier findings in a more elaborate studyt
Replication of Asch’s ‘lines’ conformity exps using blue/green paradigm But, when tested in private, only the consistent minority of 2 influenced change of belief Condition influenced Ss Control 6 % Consistent minority of 1 15 % Consistent minority of 2 42.5 % Inconsistent minority of 2 11 % Unanimous majority* 50 % Non-unanimous majority 35 % * = replication of Asch’s lines experiment
Majority influence revisited Movement to majority position is due to: The common belief that there is truth in numbers (informational influence) Due to the concern for being accepted by those numbers (normative influence) Underlying this social influence is a generally positive judgment of and attraction toward to majority by those being influenced (Wood et al, 1994)
Conformity studies of majority influence In conformity studies of majority influence (all others in group are opposed to the subject): Normative pressures lead to public influence Opinion uniformity is valued because it provides group members with social support for, and validation of their views (Festinger, 1954) Dissenters are disliked because they impede group goals (Levine, 1989) Informational pressures lead to public and private influence So, do minorities have less social influence? Or, is it because minorities tend to be disliked that people do not wish to conform in public?
Minority vs. majority influences Depth of processing (Moscovici & Lage, 1976) Minority influence = deep A minority, without obtaining substantial overt acceptance of its point of view can influence the basis of other people’s judgements. Majority influence = shallow A majority, if unanimous, can make almost all accept its point of view without affecting the underlying perceptual-cognitive system.
Theory of minority conversion Moscovici (1980) Majorities produce public compliance rather than conversion Direct, immediate, temporary effect of social influence Minorities challenge beliefs and produce private conversion Indirect, delayed, private effect of social influence
Dual Process Model Majorities induce conformity by means of a public comparison process Without giving attention or thought to the issue itself (no conversion of attitude) Minorities induce conformity by means of a private validation process Directed cognitive activity aimed at understanding why the minority consistently holds on to its opinion Attention diverted to the object, a latent process of conversion as Ss begin to look at the object as the minority does (conversion of attitude)
Evaluation of dual-process model WOOD et al. (1994) Meta-analysis of 97 studies of minority influence 3 kinds of influence were reviewed: Public judgment change (c.f. compliance) Private change on issues directly related to the appeal (c.f. conversion) Private change on issues indirectly related to the appeal (i.e. changes in after-image colour effects, or indirectly related beliefs)
Wood et al (1994) Found that patterns of influence were consistent with Moscovici’s dual-process model Minorities < change than majorities on direct measures of influences Minorities > influence on indirect private measures But offered different interpretation of findings:
Wood et al’s interpretation of results Social influence occurs not because of different cognitive processes But because Ss don’t want to align themselves with deviant social groups i.e. studies showed less direct private agreement when they defined the minority source as a member of a minority social group (e.g. homosexual student, or radical feminist) Others have also queried the utility of the dual-process model (e.g. Latane and Wolf, 1981). They see social influence a UNITARY process, regardless of majority or minority source. Social influence (or social impact) as they call it, is a multiplicative function of: the strength (power & expertise) immediacy (proximity in space and time) and size (number) Of the influence source. So, as the size of ANY ONE OF THESE increases, it will INCREASE the effective value of all the other variables BUT, This is mediated by a power function of IMPACT, (similar to additive tasks ie tug of war/and brainstorming) so that as the size of the target group increases, the effect of the minority source decreases However, this influence is mostly related to PUBLIC influence, not private influence
Conclusions Moscovici raised questions about nature of social influence Differences in deep/shallow processing between minority and majority social influences Wood et al concluded Effects of social influence may not be related to different levels of processing but may be more related to social stigma of deviant minorities