870 likes | 1.24k Views
Conformity. Social Psychology Chapter 7 October 8, 2004 Class #6. Conformity. Changing one’s behavior to match the responses or actions of others (no pressure necessarily). The Chameleon Effect. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) Participant and confederate worked on a task together.
E N D
Conformity Social Psychology Chapter 7 October 8, 2004 Class #6
Conformity • Changing one’s behavior to match the responses or actions of others (no pressure necessarily)
The Chameleon Effect • Chartrand and Bargh (1999) • Participant and confederate worked on a task together
Is behavior contagious? • Milgram et al. (1969) • Research confederates congregated and craned their necks to gawk at a window on the 6th floor of an apartment building • 80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed upward
Uncertainty • In ambiguous situations, people tend to rely on information provided by others • Sherif asked students to judge the apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall • Autokinetic Effect • A stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move
Sherif (1937) • Put yourself in the role of the participant… • Day 1 • Participant stares at a pinpoint of light about 15 feet away • The light seems to be moving but you can’t be sure…after a few seconds it disappears • Sherif: How far did it move? • Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe about 8 inches
Sherif (1937) • Day 2 • The participant is now joined by three confederates • This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about 15 feet away • Again, you think it moved about 8 inches • Sherif: How far did it move? • Confederate 1: 2 inches • Confederate 2: an inch or two • Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one inch • Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches • Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy
Sherif (1937) • Day 3 • The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “about 4 inches” • Day 4 • The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “its probably like 2 inches”
Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence • Lets look at Asch’s classic research studies involving group pressure… • Asch (1951, 1952, 1956)
Asch (1951) • Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? • In this early version, Asch had 16 “naïve” participants with 1 confederate who gave incorrect answers 1 2 3 A
Asch (1951) • Results: • Participants laughed at and ridiculed the confederate
Asch’s Research on Group Influence (1951, 1952, 1956) • Series of experiments most done with 1 participant and 5-8 confederates • Real participant would give their judgment after several confederates had already given theirs
Asch (1956) • Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? • What would you say if you were in a group of 6 others, and all agreed the answer was 2? 1 2 3 A
Asch (1956) • When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct… • When confronted by the unanimous incorrect majority, participants conformed 37% of the time…in fact 75% went against their own eyes at least once if the group gave a wrong answer 1 2 3 A
Asch (1956) • Some participants said they didn’t want to look silly or be rejected by the rest of the group • This is referred to as normative social influence • They wanted to “fit in” with the others • Some participants said it was because they thought the others must have had better eyesight or be better informed in some way • This is referred to as informational social influence • They were basically utilizing others as a source of information
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that strengthen conformity • The following were influential insofar as conformity was concerned... • Group size • Incompetent and insecure individuals • Group’s status and attractiveness
Group size • As the number of people increases so does conformity… • Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to 15 confederates in his many studies • Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the amount of additional influence was negligible
Incompetent and insecure individuals • When one is made to feel incompetent or insecure conformity is likely
Group’s status and attractiveness • Kind of goes without saying…if its a group you want to be a part of – you will likely conform to its opinions
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that weaken conformity • Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect” • Independence
Presence of an ally • The presence of a true partner, who agreed with the subject, reduced conformity by 80% • When we have an ally, we can diffuse the pressure because we are not the only one breaking the norm • Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minority • Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conform
Independence • Some people care more about standing up for their rights than being disliked • In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone dissenter resisted the pressure to conform
Asch (1956) • Bottom-line Conclusion: • People faced with strong group consensus sometimes go along even though they think the others may be wrong • And these are strangers…what if they were member’s of your own circle of friends?
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies • Sherif: • Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other for guidance • Asch: • Participants often found themselves in an awkward position • It was obvious that group was wrong
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
Types of Conformity • Private Conformity: • Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs • Public Conformity: • Superficial change in overt behavior only
Active and Public Commitments • Students in one experiment were asked to judge lines in an Asch-type experiment • Before hearing group members make erroneous judgments: • Some privately wrote down their judgments (Active Commitment Only) • Others wrote their judgments and gave them to the experimenter (Active plus Public Commitment)
Public Commitments Of those who made NO COMMITMENT to their original decisions, only about half stuck with them in the face of group pressure 100% 80% 60% % Sticking w. Orig. Judgment 40% 20% 0% Neither Active nor public COMMITMENT Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Public Commitments Making a PRIVATE COMMITMENT increased the likelihood of sticking to the original correct judgment 100% 80% 60% % Sticking w. Orig. Judgment 40% 20% 0% Neither Active nor public Active Only COMMITMENT Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Public Commitments Making the commitment PUBLIC further increased the likelihood of resisting group pressure 100% 80% 60% % Sticking w. Orig. Judgment 40% 20% 0% Neither Active nor public ActiveOnly Active Plus Public COMMITMENT Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Majority Influence: Awareness of Norms • Conform only when we know about and focus on social norms • Often misperceive what is normative • Pluralistic ignorance
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
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
PERRIN & SPENCER (1980) • Critique of Asch 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
Neto (1995) • This study aimed at investigating whether conformity in the experimental setting suggested by Asch was particularly related to American culture and less likely to be replicable elsewhere - e.g. in Portugal - as has been suggested more recently • Participants: • Asch's classic conformity and independence experiment was replicated, using women psychology students in a Portuguese university • Procedure: • The original procedure was re-enacted as similarly as possible using a computer program
Neto (1995) • Results: • Among participants in the experimental condition 59% conformed at least once, 28% yielded three to twelve times • Thus this shows that a degree of conformity to a unanimous peer-group opinion remains observable • Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure
Asch Effect • Bottom Line: • Asch effect appears to be an unpredictable phenomenon rather than a stable tendency of human behavior
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
How do minorities influence others? • Minorities influence others through their own behavioral style: • Make their proposition clear at the outset • Stick to their original proposition • Withstand the majority influence
DEL MAR, California (March 26, 1997) • 39 cult members were found dead in a hilltop mansion • They apparently died in a carefully orchestrated suicide that involved sedatives, vodka and plastic bags possibly used to suffocate
Together forever??? • In 1994, members began to talk more openly about leaving Earth for what they called "The Kingdom Level Above Human," which they said was a "real, physical" place • Pictured to the right is their leader, Marshall Applewhite
He got people to conform to his beliefs… • “Hale-Bopp's (comet) approach is the ‘marker’ we've been waiting for -- the time for the arrival of the spacecraft from the Level Above Human to take us home to ‘Their World’ -- in the literal Heavens” • Our 22 years of classroom here on planet Earth is finally coming to conclusion -- "graduation" from the Human Evolutionary Level • They believed that a spaceship was following the comet and they were happily prepared to leave • They committed the mass suicide so that their spirits could board the ship
Other less extreme examples of conformity… • TV comedies that use canned laughter – research shows that it works • Bartenders and street musicians will often place money in their tip jars or hats – again research shows that this works
Compliance • Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests
The Language of Requests • Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve compliance rates • People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of the request • How you ask for something can be more important than what you ask for • Langer et al (1978): We often respond mindlessly to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey
Norm of Reciprocity • The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us. • This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay for acts of kindness, even when unsolicited. • Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived.