Transcript File - D. Cook Academic

Prepared by Robert Gass & John Seiter
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
1
CONFORMITY TO GROUP NORMS
Norms are expectations governing group member’s behavior
 Norms may be explicit or formal
 not cheating on a test
 not texting while driving
 Norms may be implicit, informal
 not picking your nose during class
 Not taking your clothes off in class
 Norms may not be apparent until they are violated
 Is it okay to wake someone up to ask her/him a favor?
 Is it okay to ask your ex-girlfriend’s sister out?
2
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
EARLY CONFORMITY RESEARCH
Asch found conformity to group judgments was common
 Individuals estimated the length of lines
 Group members (confederates) offered different judgments
 75% of all subjects modified their estimates at least once to
conform to the group
 25% remained largely independent of the group’s judgment
 Public conformity doesn’t necessarily imply private
conformity
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
3
INFLUENCE OF NORMS
Groups may punish deviation from established
norms
Norms are most influential in ambiguous social
situations
 Subjects littered more in a setting where others
were seen littering
Norms may persist even if they are dysfunctional
 “Win at any cost” mentality in business
 “Codes of silence” among police officers
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
4
GROUP SIZE AND CONFORMITY
Social impact theory (SIT)
Social influence model (SIM)
 The first few person added
to a group exerts the most
pressure to conform
 The 3rd and 4th members
added exert the most
pressure to conform
 Each additional member
adds pressure to conform,
but their influence is
proportionally less
 With a 3rd or 4th member,
coalitions can emerge
 For example, the 5th group
member has more
influence than the 9th
group member
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
5
GROUP SIZE AND CONFORMITY
Informational influence
 Consistent with social influence model
 Emphasis is on the group being correct
 More heads are likely to know the answer than one
 1st person added has the greatest impact (later members’ opinions
become redundant)
 More important when responding in private
Normative influence
 Members want to be liked, accepted by the group
 Fitting in matters more than being right
 Consistent with social impact theory
 More important when responding in a group
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
6
RESISTING PRESSURE TO CONFORM
Morality as motivated resistance hypothesis
 People with stronger moral convictions are better at
resisting pressure to conform
It is difficult for a lone dissenter to resist unanimous
group pressure
A holdout with even one ally can resist more easily
 A second dissenter decreases conformity by 80%
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
7
INDOCTRINATION & INITIATION
Initiation rituals may entail hazing, humiliation, or even
violence
 Fraternity/sorority initiations
 Hazing new firefighter recruits
 Gang initiations
 Marines’ “blood pinning” ceremony
Members tend to value groups more when initiations
are intense
 Consistent with the “effort-justification” paradigm in
cognitive dissonance
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
8
CULT INDOCTRINATION
Cult indoctrination often follows four stages:
1 softening up stage
 Befriending, self-affirmation, “love bombing”
2 compliance stage
 Milieu control over sleep, diet, appearance
3 internalization stage
 New members incorporate cult doctrine
4 consolidation stage
 Loyalty tests, donations, recruitment
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
9
FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Identification and reference groups
 Reference groups provide standards of
comparison for self-appraisal
 “Keeping up with the Joneses…”
 People consider reference groups when
making decisions
 What professor to take
 What smartphone to buy
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
10
FACTORS AFFECTING CONFORMITY
Ethnocentrism
 Belief in the superiority of
one’s own culture
 One’s own culture is the
standard by which other
cultures should be judged
Strong culture
 Extreme loyalty and
identification with one’s
organization
Groupthink
 Members engage in
consensus-seeking
 They reinforce one another’s
opinions
 They fail to question or analyze
ideas
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
11
GENDER AND CONFORMITY
In general women tend to conform more than men
 Sex roles affect conformity
 Females are socialized to be more communal
 Males are socialized to be more independent
 Status also affects conformity; a female CEO may conform
less than a male middle manager
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
12
PEER PRESSURE AND CONFORMITY
Peer influence increases during adolescence
Peer pressure can promote risky behaviors
 tobacco, alcohol, drug use
Peer pressure can lead to aggression
 Hazing, teasing, ostracism can spark violence
 Online hazing can trigger suicides
Peer pressure also has positive effects
 Peers also model desirable behaviors
 Peer pressure cut smoking rates in half (Rosenberg, 2011)
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
13
PERSONALITY AND CONFORMITY
Managers with high cognitive complexity conform less in
stressful situations than those with low cognitive
complexity
People who are high on control conform less than those
who are low on control
High self-monitors tend to conform more than low selfmonitors
People with a high need for affiliation conform more than
those who don’t desire to belong so much
Dogmatic people tend to conform more than nondogmatics, but only for highly respected sources
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
14
CULTURE AND CONFORMITY
Power-Distance
 People from high power-distance
cultures tend to value obedience,
authority
 People from low power-distance
cultures tend to value individual
autonomy
Tolerance for ambiguity
 Some cultures have a higher
tolerance for ambiguity than others
Masculine-Feminine
 People from “masculine” cultures
tend to conform less than people
from “feminine” cultures
Individualism-Collectivism
 Individualistic cultures view
conformity more negatively
 Collectivistic cultures view
conformity more positively
 Less tolerance for ambiguity tends
to produce more conformity
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
15
THE WHY’S OF CONFORMITY
Group locomotion hypothesis
 The individual goes along to
achieve the goals of the group
Social comparison theory
 The group is a yardstick for
measuring one’s own
performance
Consistency theory
Epistemological weighting
hypothesis
 Members think the group
knows more than they do
Hedonistic hypothesis
 Members conform to receive
social benefits, avoid social
punishment
 Liking and identification with the
group discourages deviance
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
16
SOCIAL PROOF
Monkey see, monkey do
 People base their behavior on
what others are doing
 Internet piracy
 Urban graffiti
Viral marketing relies on social
proof
 A social phenomenon is
spread by word of mouth
 Groupon and word of mouth
Sales and social proof
 Consumer ratings and reviews
 Yelp, Urbanspoon, TripAdvisor
Prosocial behavior
 reusable shopping bags
 volunteerism
Negative social proof
 Cheating
 bullying
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
17
OSTRACISM
Social ostracism involves excluding or ignoring others
 Shunning as a practice in some religious communities
 Campus shootings are often attributable to social ostracism
 Cyber-bullying
Social ostracism makes some people long for attention,
recognition
Social ostracism makes some people more vulnerable to
influence attempts
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
18
DEINDIVIDUATION
Depersonalization
 Individual identity is subsumed to that
of the group
 A diffusion of responsibility occurs
 Anonymity increases deindividuation
Negative social consequences
 Lynch mobs
 Vandalism by unruly sports fans
 Treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq
 Crowd size affects antisocial behavior
Bystander effects
 Bystanders may fail to help in
an emergency
Self-Awareness
 Increasing private selfawareness reduces
deindividuation
 Increasing accountability
decreases deindividuation
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
19
THE BYSTANDER EFFECT
Richmond, CA, 2009: A 15 year
Increasing private awareness can
old was gang raped outside her high overcome the bystander effect
school’s homecoming dance
 The ordeal lasted 2 ½ hours
Identifying individuals can overcome
the bystander effect
 At least 20 passers-by failed to
call police
 “You, in the red sweater, call 911!”
 Other witnesses watched,
laughed, and took pictures
 “Ma’am, I need your help. Go pull
the fire alarm”
Steubenville, Ohio, 2013: an
unconscious 16 year old girl was
sexually assaulted by two high
school football players
 Fellow students shared pictures
about the event via social media
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
20
DEINDIVIDUATION & SOCIAL LOAFING
Slackers: People exert less effort in
a group than working alone
 The Ringlemann effect: in a tug of
war, adding team members reduces
individual effort
 Decision making & problem solving:
as members are added, individual
effort tapers off
Collective effort model
Free ride effect
 Members coast if they are
anonymous
 Members coast if they aren’t
personally accountable
Sucker effect
 Productive members slack off
when they see others aren’t
working
 Members coast when individuals’
contributions can’t be distinguished
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
21
REDUCING SOCIAL LOAFING
The larger the group, the less likely people are to help
Limiting group size can reduce social loafing
Assessing individual performance reduces social loafing
Diligent isolates are less likely to engage in social loafing,
but may foster social loafing in others
Social facilitation
 Groups may motivate people to try harder
 Energizing effect of groups can lead to greater risk-taking
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
22
RISK-TAKING BEHAVIOR
Risky-shift phenomenon
 Groups are tend to make riskier
decisions than individuals
 The group’s consensus is typically
riskier than the average risk-level of
its members
Group polarization
 Groups enhance members’ preexisting tendencies toward risktaking or risk-aversion
 High risk-takers skew the average
willingness of the group to assume
risks
Social comparison theory
 Members entertain ideas they
would not otherwise consider
Persuasive arguments theory (PAT)
 The most vocal members advocate
the most extreme views
There can also be a shift toward
greater caution
 More vocal members may
advocate greater caution
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 01 4 P E A R S O N E D U C AT I O N , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
23