1. Social Psychology Lecture 13
Conformity and Social Influence
Jane Clarbour
Room: PS/B jc129
This is the first of two lectures….

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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’

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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!!

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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!

20. 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

21. 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 ).

22. 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

23. ‘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

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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)

27. 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).

28. 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

29. Percent of green responses given by majority Ss

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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?

36. 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.

37. 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

38. 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)

39. 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)

40. 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:

41. 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

42. 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