Social influence – conformity and integroup relations

1. Social influence – conformity and integroup relations Lecture 14

2. Social influence • Social influence = change of judgments, opinions and attitudes under the impact of judgments, opinions and attitudes of other people

3. Autokinetic effect • M. Sherif (1935) • Optical illusion of moving light • Establishing individual norms (where is the light point) • Introducing experimenter’s confederate with different norm • Convergence of norms  creation of a group norm

4. Experimental equipment in autokinetic effect experiments

5. Two procedures • I – first individual norms followed by creation of group norms • II – first group norms followed by studies of individuals

6. Creation of a group norm After: Sherif & Sherif, 1969

8. Autokinetic effect • Reversed procedure: • First creation of the group norm • Afterwards: subjects studied individually • Effect: persistance of the group norm

9. Conformity • Solomon Asch (1951) • Comparison of lines (line matching) • 18 trials • 7 persons, including one naive participant and six confederates of the experimenter • Participant – position 6

11. Table arrangement 4 3 5 6 2 1 7

13. Experimental design • 37 trials: participantsloudly announce results of comparisons • 6 neutral trials: the first two trials + 4 randomly distributed  confederates gave correct answer • 31 trials conderates give wrong answers

14. Results • Control group: 37 subjects - 35 persons without error • Experimental group: • 37% errors • only 25% subjects without any error • 28% subjects - 8 or more errors • The majority - 1-7 errors

15. Results of Solomon Asch experiment

16. Mechanisms of conforming behaviors • Informational influence: others as source of information private conformity or conversion • Normative influence:conformity through desire to be liked or fear of rejection/ridicule public conformity or compliance

17. Which type of influence when? • Ambiguous stimuli conversion • eg. Autokinetic effect (Sherif) • Unambiguous stimuli  compliance • eg. Line matching (Asch)

18. Reducing conformity • Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions • Devil’s advocate or having a supporter • Size of the group

19. Devil’s advocate or having a supporter • Modification of Asch’s task I • Adding one person who „saw” like subject • Result: drop in conformity • Modification of Asch’s task II • Adding a person who gave even more extreme answers than rest of the group • Result: drop in conformity

20. Role of a supporter in reducing compliance

21. Credibility of the supporter • Eexperiment by Allen & Levine (1971)  • Conditions: • (a) Supporter known to have very poor vision(invalid social support)) • (b) Supporter known to have good vision (valid social support)) • Results: Conformity higher in (a) than (b) but lower than in no support condition

22. Role of social support: credible and incredible supporter After: Allen i Levine, 1971

23. Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions • Experiment by Ross, Bierbauer, Hoffman (1976) • Asch’s paradigm • Ss paid for correct answers • Ss informed that other Ss were in different payoff conditions • Results: drop in conformity

24. Instruction differentiating experimental conditions Exp. Ross, Bierbrauer & Hoffman, 1976)

25. Size of group • Conformity inversely related to the power function of the size of the group • Conformity depends on size of the group that inserts pressure and size of the group that is subject to pressure (Social Influence Model by Tanford & Penrod)

26. Social Influence Model by Tanford & Penrod

27. Culture and conformity (obedience to the authority of the elders) After: Garbarino & Bronfenbrenner, 1976

29. Minority influence • Serge Moscovici (1976) • Minority inserts influence through consistency

30. Eexperiment by Moscovici • Task: colour perception, 36 blue slides • Conditions: 6 persons, including 2 confederates (position 1and 4)

31. Experimental design 3 4 2 5 1 6 participants

32. Experimental conditions: • Consistent condition: green on all trials • Inconsistent condition: : • „green” - 24 times • „blue” - 12 times • Results: consistent minority induced more change

33. Results After: Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969)

34. Mechanisms of majority & minority influences • Majority compliance without conversion (normative influence) • Minority  conversion without compliance (informational influence)

35. Minority influence: normative or informational?

38. After image of blue

39. After image of green

40. Colour of after image as measure of type of conformity (compliance vs. konversion) • After image yellow seen blue normative influence • After image purple seen green  informational influence

41. Experiment: Moscovici & Personnaz (1980) • Task: colour recognition + naming the colour of the after-image • 5 blue slides • after image of blue  yellow-orange • after image of green  red-purple • Procedure: 4 stages

42. Stage I • Private (without confederate) • write down the colour • rate the after-image yellow purple 1 9

43. Feedback information Ss informed that their response shared by : 81.8 % people 18,2% people Subject in majority Subject in minority The remaining percentage saw GREEN

44. Stage II • 15 trials (with confederate) • tested in pairs • name of the colour given publicly • no judgment of after image • the first subject (confederate) said GREEN • this perceived as a minority (1) or majority (2) response

45. Stage III • With confederate • 15 trials • Privacy conditions: writing down the colour+rating the after-image

46. Stage IV • Private and without confederate • writing down the colour+rating the after-image • Results: more conversion in minority conditions

47. Results

48. Obedience

49. Obedience • Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)

50. Experimental creation of obedience (Milgram, 1974) • Teacher – pupil • Punishing errors • Voltage: 15-450 V • 26/40 subjects continued to the very end