Social Influence

Social Influence Conformity

Conformity videos • Elevator • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B738X-ibz2o&feature=related • Conformity to gender

Conformity • Is the tendencytoadjustone’sthoughts, feelings, or behaviour in waysthatare in agreementwiththose of a particularindividual or group • A simple term that is used is ”peer pressure” butconformity is morecomplexthan that

Conformity • A person who is free to behave in several different ways and who has no personal preference for any will often do what he/she sees others doing. • For instance, when walking into a store, one sees that all others are standing in a particular line, one is most inclined to step into the line and wait his/her turn. • When someone at a gathering looks up, others tend to look up also. • If someone says that a papier-mâché frog placed on the top of a building is art, others will agree and someone might pay thousands of dollars for the privilege of having such artwork as his own.

Learning outcome • Evaluateresearch on conformity togroup norms

Sherif (1945) did some research that provided an interesting demonstration of conformity. • In his study he took advantage of the perceptual effect known as the "autokinetic phenomenon," a single point of light seen in the dark appears to move even though it is completely stationary • The phenomenon was revealed during World War II when pilots, who were supposed to follow the lights of other planes ahead of them, were bothered by the effect • The problem was eliminated by using lights that blink

In Sherif's experiment, each subject was taken into a totally dark room and shown a single point of light. The subjects were told that the light was moving and that their task was to estimate how far the light moved. The subjects were unfamiliar with the autokinetic phenomenon. • The estimates of the subjects varied enormously. Several thought the light moved only one or two inches, whereas others thought it moved as much as eighty feet.

Into this ambiguous situation, Sherif introduced another subject who was supposedly also judging how far the light moved. This other subject was, however, a confederate who had been told to make his estimates consistently lower or higher than those of the test subject. • The procedure: There was a trial during which the light presumably moved; the subject gave his estimate and the confederate then gave his estimate. The same procedure was repeated for a number of trials.

Under these circumstances, the subject soon began to make estimates that were more and more similar to those of the confederate than the ones he had made at the beginning. • For example, if the subject began by estimating that the light moved between 20 and 30 feet and the confederate said it moved only 3 - 5 feet, on the second trial the subject would tend to lower his estimates, and on the third trial he would lower it even more. By the end of the series, the subject's estimates were very similar to those of the confederate.

The study clearly showed a strong demonstration of agreement when the subject was not sure of his position. However, it could be argued that the study did not demonstrate blind conformity • After all, the object that the test subject was trying to judge was ambiguous. In essence, the subject had no idea how far the light moved, and he was essentially guessing when he gave his estimate. On the other hand, the confederate might have appeared to have a definite idea about how far the light moved.

Asch (1951) agreed that Sherif's study showed a type of conformity but, was it blind conformity? • Asch believed that once the effect of the ambiguous frame of reference was removed, there would be little or no conformity. He felt that people would trust their own perceptions and beliefs when reality supported them and that they would accordingly remain independent even in the face of a group that unanimously disagreed with him. • He constructed his experiment in 1951 to test this expectation…

Solomon Asch • 1951 Results: • About 75% conformed at leastonce • A mean of 32% conformed in half or more of the trials • 24 % neverconformed • SolomonAsch’s experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA&feature=related • Handout: study (you got in MYP5)

Moscovici (minority vs. majority) Moscoviciand Lage 1976, used 4 participants and 2 confederates, describes a blue-green colour as green (shown on slides). Managed to influence 32% of the participants to make at least one wrong judgment. • Canyouthinkofany real life examples?

Evaluate research on conformity • Asch • Sherif’s Study • Moscovici (minority vs. majority) • McEg • Groupthink - Where is it dangerous to have groupthink?

Why do people conform? • Theories?

Asch – conformityLearning outcome: discussfactorsinfluencingconformity • Following factors influence the likelihood to conform to the group: Research (Asch): • Group size ( 1: 3%, 2: 14%, 3: 32%) • Unanimity (more when all confederates agreed) • Confidence (Perrin and Spencer 1988 – medical students and engineers) • Self-esteem (Stang 1973) Individual factors (Crutchfield’s personality theory 1955)

Why do people conform? • Deutsch and Gerard 1955: • Informational social influence (Festinger 1954 called this: Social comparison – cognitive dissonance) 2. Deutsch and Gerard 1955: Normative social influence See handout

Cultural aspects of conformity • Do cultural norms affect conformity?

Cultural aspects of conformity • Asian cultures engage more in conforming behaviours and value it more as well compared to the Americans (who see it as a negative trait) • Cashmore and Goodnow (1986) found high levels of conformity among Italians

Cultural aspects of conformity • Smith and Bond (1993) carried out a review of 31 conformity studies and found: % - of incorrect responses • Belgian students: 14 % • Indian teachers in Fiji: 58% • North America & north-west Europe: 25,3 % • Africa, Asia, Oceania & South America: 37,1% • Bond & Smith (1996) found that people who score high on Hoefstede’s collectivism scale conform more (cultural dimensions)

Social Influence