Konformität

1. Konformität Vorlesung Sommer 2012 Thomas Kessler

2. Überblick • Konformität und Majoritätseinfluss • Sherif und der autokinetische Effekt • Aschs Linienexperiment • Einflussfaktoren der Konformität • Gruppenkohäsion • Soziale Unterstützung • Warum verhalten sich Menschen konform? • Normativer und informativer Einfluss • Der Einfluss von Autorität • Milgrim

3. Leitfragen • Was ist Konformität? • Durch welche Faktoren wird Konformität beeinfluss? • Warum verhalten wir uns konform?

4. Konformität • Sozialer Einfluss: Veränderung der Urteile, Meinungen und Einstellungen einer Person infolge der Konfrontation mit der Auffassung anderer Menschen • Konformität (Mehrheitseinfluss): Sozialer Einfluss der sich aus der Konfrontation mit der Meinung einer Mehrheit ergibt.

5. Konformität • Konformität

6. Einfluss in Gruppen 2.0 Recipients Mean desirability rank Deviate (maintained 6.1 counter-normative position) Slider (changed position 4.8 after 15 minutes) Mode (maintained pro- 4.5 normative position) 1.5 1.0 0.5 5-15 15-25 25-35 35-45 Time during discussion (mins) Number of communications (per person) addressed to ´deviate ´, slider´ and ´mode ´in Schachter´s (1951) experiment.

7. Men Women Percentage conforming Masculine Neutral Feminine Type of item Konformität und Stereotypen Conformity as a function of sex of participant and sex-stereotypicality of task When a task is male-stereotypical, more women conform. When the task is female-stereotypical, more men conform.

8. Konformität und deskr. Normen Littering The Effects of Injunctive and Descriptive Social Norms. Passersby saw a stranger littering (high norm salience) versus passersby simply saw stranger walking by (low norm salience) in a clean versus dirty environment Source: Based on data from Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990)

9. Konformität und deskr. Normen The Effects of proximity of injunctive norm Source: Based on data from Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990)

10. Entstehung sozialer Normen • Entstehung • Autokinetischer Effekt (Sherif, 1935)

12. 10 10 8 8 6 6 Inches 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 II III IV II III IV Sessions Sessions Entstehung sozialer Normen • Sherif (1935) autokinetischer Effekt Median judgments of movement under alone (I) or group (II, III, IV) conditions (left), and under group (I, II, III) or alone (IV) conditions (right) in Sherif´s (1935) study on norm formation

13. C A B Standard line Comparison lines Konformitätsdruck • Aschs Linien Experiment Participants in Asch´s research were asked to report their judgments on problems such as this one. On each problem, they indicated which of the comparison lines (A, B, or C) best matched the standard line in terms of length.

14. 36,8 Conformity was reduced when the group´s unanimity was broken, but was reduced most by an ally and by an extreme dissenter 24,5 Percentage of Trials on Which Participants Conformed 9,2 9 Unanimous group Ally Dissenter- Compromise Dissenter- More extreme Experimental Conditions Konformitätsdruck Ergebnisse: Breaking Group Unanimity: An Effective Means of Reducing Conformity. When another person present broke with the majority, whether by becoming the participant´s ally (giving the correct answer), by giving a compromise answer, or by giving an answer even more inaccurate than that chosen by the majority, conformity was greatly reduced.

15. More than half the subjects conformed three of fewer times Only a small percent demonstrated total conformity 33 24 Percent of Subjects Showing Each Level of Conformity 18 14 11 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 Number of Occasions on Which Subjects Conform Konformitätsdruck While most participants in Asch´s research yielded to the false group judgments at least once, most resisted group pressure on most occasions. For example, fully 58 percent conformed three times or less during the twelve critical trials (occasions when the accomplices gave false answers).

16. 1 0,9 0,8 0,7 Conformity scores 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 No social support Invalid social support Valid social support Konformität und soziale Unterstützung Ergebnisse: Conformity in the absence and in the presence of social support (based on Allen and Levine, 1971)

17. 10,00 10 9 8 Public 7,00 7 Private Mean conforming responses 6,00 6 5,00 5 4 4,00 3,00 3 Control 2 2,00 1 0 Determinded Undeterminded Undeterminded Determinded Konformität und soziale Unterstützung Ergebnisse: Mean conformity data on 10 critical trials (data from Insko et al., 1983)

18. Percentage of socially induced errors Private & anonymous Face-to-face & group goal Face-to-face Konformität und soziale Unterstützung Ergebnisse: accurate ambiguous Conformity as a function of uncertainty and perceived group pressure Participants judging the unambiguous length of lines were influenced by the unanimously incorrect judgments of the other members of the group - influence was strengthened when accuracy was stressed as an important group goal, and was weakened when ambiguity was introduced and when responses were anonymous and private. However, ambiguity and anonymity did not abolish conformity. Source based on data from Deutsch and Gerard, 1955.

19. Warum Konformität??? • Warum verhalten sich Menschen konform? • Normativer Einfluss: • Einfluss, der auf dem Bedürfnis beruht, von anderen Menschen akzeptiert und bestätigt zu werden. • Informativer Einfluss: • Einfluss, der auf dem Informationswert der von anderen Menschen zum Ausdruck gebrachten Meinungen beruht, d.h. darauf, was sie einer Person über einen Aspekt der Realität sagen.

20. Das Milgrim Experiment • Einfluss von Autoritäten • Coverstory: Einfluss von Bestrafung auf das Lernhalten • „Lehrer“ (die echte Vpn) konnte einen Schüler mit bis zu 450 Volt starken Stromstößen bestrafen.

21. The victim pounded on the wall again at this point; after this, he gave no further answers to the learning task Percentage of Subjects Who Obey the Experimenter´s Commands at Each Supposed Shock Level The victim pounded on the wall in protest at this point Fully 65 percent of the subjects obeyed the experimenter´s command to deliver a 450- volt shock to the learner Danger: severe shock XXX 450 volts Intense Extreme intensity Slight Moderate Strong Very strong Konformität A surprisingly large proportion of the male participants in Milgram´s research obeyed the experimenter´s orders to deliver electric shocks of increasing strength to an innocent victim. Fully 65 percent demonstrated total obedience to these commands. Source: Based on data from Milgram, 1963

22. 100 Percentage maximally obedient subjects 50 0 Disobeying peers present No peer present Obeying peers present Konformität und soziale Unterstützung Ergebnisse: Obedience as a function of peer behaviour (data from Milgram, 1974)

23. Percentage subjects giving maximal volts Pounding Hearing Seeing Feeling Nähe zum Opfer Ergebnisse: Obedience as a function of physical proximity (data from Milgram, 1974

24. Zusammenfassung • Konformität ist die Veränderungen von Meinungen und Urteilen als Folge des sozialen Einflusses einer Mehrheit. • Durch normativen und informativen Druck erreichen Mehrheiten Konformität ihrer Mitglieder.

25. Literatur • Eddy van Avermaet (2001). Social influence in small groups. In: M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe (eds.) Introduction to Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 403-443. • Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press. • Turner, J. C. (1991). Social Influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.