Conformity
going along with other people/ change in behavior due to the perceived influence of others
Compliance
following an order
Causes of Conformity
- Normative Influence
- Informational Influence
- both can happen at the same time or one can dominate the other
Normative Influence
occurs when the need to be accepted causes us to go along with others . Need to not be ostracized and avoid conflict (public acceptance/compliance)
Informational influence
occurs when we're not sure what the correct thing to do is. Uncertainty causes us to look to others to see what is correct. Eg: Who wants to be a millionaire and people are giving lifelines and they can poll the audience on what the right answer is. Conte
Moment of influence
can happen when everyone stands for the anthem but you want to take a knee but you go along with what everyone else is doing to avoid public conflict and have public acceptance.
Norms
standards we have internalized, things we tell ourselves are correct
Norm Emergence and Perseverance Study
- Dotted line is projected on a screen in a darkened room, after a while, the light appears to wonder (Autokinetic effect - amount of movement defers from one person to another) which is purely subjective as the light is stationary in reality.
- Researche
Results of Norm Emergence and Perseverance Study
- Primarily informational influence as stimulus was ambiguous, nobody knew how far the light actually moved (as the light was stationary) and a group of 3 is the smallest group you can possibly have causing there to be a majority (2 against 1) which isn't
Informational Influence occurs when...
- Reality is ambiguous
- There is minimal pressure to conform
Normative influence study
- Participants had to judge lines
- Must pick out which line closes matches standard line, you are in position 5 and you give answers out loud in order from 1-6.
- 1 to 4 said the answer was A and then it becomes participants' turn to give their answer.
Informational Study Results
- Found that participant went with the group in critical trials 37% of the time. Found that they went along with the group for diff reasons during interviews.
- One reason a subject gave was that he thought the rest of the group was right which was almost
Normative Influence Survey
- 37% conformity rate in actual study
- 12% of self predicted conformity
- People are underestimating their susceptibility to pressure as less student predicted they would conform that the percentage of people that actually conformed in the Ash study
- Du
Follow up of Normative Influence Study
- Asch measured the effect of having at least one confederate dissent (One other person that goes against group and gives correct answer) & give the correct answer
- As group size increases so does conformity. Larger groups don't have a lot of studies as
Causes of conformity increase
1. Subject is solitary dissenter
2. The behavior is public
3. People are unsure of a situation, or it's a crisis (If lines were much closer together in height, it becomes really difficult for participants to choose the correct answer. So if 4 other people
Need to be accurate on conformity study
- People asked to view a video of a crime, one video was low in ambiguity where you see criminal clearly and for several seconds.
- High ambiguity video there was no clear look at the criminal and there was no clear way to get an accurate look.
- Level of
Soft Compliance
when someone asks you to do something, you are free to say no or to agree
Mindless Compliance
we go along with what signs tells us to do or not do / the role of automaticity in compliance
Techniques for compliance
1. Foot in the door
2. Door in the face
Foot in the door technique
asking someone for a small request request which they usually agree to then following it up with a larger request which makes it harder for them to say no to the second one as they have already said yes to the first one (consistency bias)
Door in the face technique
ask people for something that you know they are going to say no to, then follow it up with a smaller, less burdensome request which they are more likely to say yes to because of the first outlandish request (someone makes a concession and you also make a
Foot in the door study
- Conducted in a really nice environment
- Asked families if they would put up sign a petition for driving safely in the neighborhood and put a little sticker in their window and everyone agreed.
- Researchers went back several months later, and approache
Door in the face Study
- Approached college student and asked them if they were willing to accompany some troubled youth to the local city zoo for one Saturday a month.
- Other half were asked first if they were willing to do it every Saturday for 4 days. No student agreed. The
Obedience - Milgram Experiment
- Research where Milgram wanted to find what the limits of following authority when that authority asks you to inflict painful and harmful shocks to another individual.
- People came in, randomly assigned to teacher or learner (learner usually confederate
Results of Obedience Study
- 2/3 went all the way to 450V.
- Payed to participate, even if they stopped they would still get payed.
- Not one participant dropped out before 150V which is about where learner started complaining
- 300V was screams and refusal to answer
- silence at 3
Class Survey - Who thought participants would go up to 450V
Those who unfamiliar with the experiment, 10%, thought they would go until 450V. Those who were familiar, 55% thought they would go up to 450V. The actual percentage was 65% and both groups greatly underestimated the amount of people who would go until 45
Class Survey - Predict Voltages at which classes said they would stop compared to the average student
- Most participants said they would stop at about 150.
- Mean of average classmate is 200V. 50V than where they think they would stop (Better than average effect)
- Actual mean was 330V.
Explanation of Milgrim's Findings
1. Foot in the door
2. Cognitive Dissonance/ Self-justification
3. Informational and normative influence
4. External attribution for Ss behavior
5. Power of situation (Arendt's "banality of evil")
Foot in the door - Milgrim
leaner doesn't complain until 150. Teacher has admitted 10 shocks meaning they said yes to the experimenter 10 times causing it to be a lot harder to say no the 11th time.
Cognitive dissonance/ Self-justification - MIlgram
Cognitive Dissonance caused by administering pain to someone that you don't know or have negative feelings about causing teacher to change attitude to justify behavior. This is done with self justification by blaming the victim, saying how can the guy on
Informational and Normative influence - Milgram
gets people to behave in a way that is out of character, people didn't know a lot of electricity or what voltages meant so they turned to the expert for information aka the experimenter causing informational influence. Normative influence caused by the fa
External attribution for Ss behavior - Milgram
biggest explanation, attribution of behavior to the experimenter (when experimenter says he will take responsibilities, subjects no longer fell responsible and feel they are just following orders)
Power of situation - Milgram
Tells us how power social situations can be, causing individuals to act in an opposite way that are totally uncharacteristic for them.
Would we get the same results today if Milgram was redone?
- Originally don't in the 1960/s where people has a lot more respect and would follow authority figures.
- Teachers got to feel what a 45V shock was like in both experiments and watched learners get strapped in a chair with electrodes on.
- Results were s
Varies Compliance
- Distance of Authority
- Distance of Victim
- Status of Authority
- Status of Individual
- Presence of others and their behavior
Distance of Authority and Conformity
When experimenter wasn't in the room but was giving instructions from an intercom, complains went way way down
Distance of Victim and Conformity
If victim was sitting next to teacher and teacher had to press down learner's arm on electric shock plate, compliance went way way down as they are directly responsible and person had an identy and wasn't just a voice.
Status of Authority
Status of authority (professor vs market researcher) caused decline in compliance due to respect and credibility put onto authority figure.
Status of Individual and Conformity
Status of individual varied their compliance. One of the first persons to drop out of the experiment was a priest who was highly respected in the 1960's. Also found that those who were used to taking orders were more likely to go to 450V.
Presence of others and their behavior and conformity
If other subjects were present and how they behaved affected compliance. If they were complying the subject was more likely to go up to 450V. In one instant, one subject refused causing the subject to be less likely to go up to 450V
Implications of Milgram
- Ss were "weak" or sadistic people (Thinking this was due to the individual when it was really due to the social context) fundamental attribution error
- External Validity (-Little to no external validity (ability to generalize in a real life situation f
Variables affecting conformity in groups
- Unanimity (Everyone following order, becomes harder to disobey)
- Cohesion (Sense of oneness, how much people value the group and the members in the group.)
- Public vs. Private Behavior (Private answers, less likely to follow orders if people others ar
individual characteristic' and conformity
- Gender : Women more likely to follow orders on average and more likely to go along with the group on average.
- Personality factors: High in agreeableness , seek out agreement and avoid disagreement, seek common ground, more likely to conform with group
Norms can conveyed by
- Injunctive
- Descriptive
Injunctive Norms
-nwhat we should do (laws or moral standards)
Eg: what person do in an area where they can litter ot where people have littered before
Descriptive Norms
- describes what people do or refrains from doing
Eg: littering is bad and brings property value down but people do it anyways
DO we need compliance?
Certain degree of compliance is necessary for civil order. Tendency to conform and look towards authority figures is hard wired due to natural selection as those was needed for survival back in the day