Transcript Slide 1

Conformity
Social Psychology
Chapter 7
October 8, 2004
Class #6
Conformity

Changing one’s behavior to match the
responses or actions of others (no
pressure necessarily)
The Chameleon Effect

Chartrand and
Bargh (1999)

Participant and
confederate worked
on a task together
Is behavior contagious?

Milgram et al. (1969)


Research confederates congregated and
craned their necks to gawk at a window on
the 6th floor of an apartment building
80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed
upward
Uncertainty

In ambiguous situations, people tend to
rely on information provided by others


Sherif asked students to judge the apparent
movement of a stationary light on a wall
Autokinetic Effect

A stationary spot of light in a dark room
appears to move
Sherif (1937)

Put yourself in the role of the participant…
 Day 1
 Participant stares at a pinpoint of light
about 15 feet away
 The light seems to be moving but you can’t
be sure…after a few seconds it disappears
Sherif: How far did it move?
 Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe
about 8 inches

Sherif (1937)


Day 2
 The participant is now joined by three confederates
 This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about
15 feet away
 Again, you think it moved about 8 inches
 Sherif: How far did it move?
 Confederate 1: 2 inches
 Confederate 2: an inch or two
 Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one
inch
 Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches
Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy
Sherif (1937)

Day 3


The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “about 4 inches”
Day 4

The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “its probably like 2 inches”
Conformity:
Asch’s Research on Group Influence

Lets look at Asch’s
classic research
studies involving
group pressure…
 Asch (1951,
1952, 1956)
Asch (1951)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
In this early
version, Asch had
16 “naïve”
participants with 1
confederate who
gave incorrect
answers
A
Asch (1951)

Results:

Participants laughed at and ridiculed the
confederate
Asch’s Research on Group Influence
(1951, 1952, 1956)


Series of experiments
most done with 1
participant and 5-8
confederates
Real participant would
give their judgment
after several
confederates had
already given theirs
Asch (1956)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
What would you say if
you were in a group
of 6 others, and all
agreed the answer
was 2?
A
Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all the
answers correct…

1 2 3
When confronted by the
unanimous incorrect
majority, participants
conformed 37% of the
time…in fact 75% went
against their own eyes at
least once if the group
gave a wrong answer
A
Asch (1956)

Some participants said they didn’t want to look
silly or be rejected by the rest of the group


This is referred to as normative social influence
 They wanted to “fit in” with the others
Some participants said it was because they
thought the others must have had better
eyesight or be better informed in some way

This is referred to as informational social
influence
 They
were basically utilizing others as a
source of information
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that
strengthen conformity

The following were influential insofar as
conformity was concerned...



Group size
Incompetent and insecure individuals
Group’s status and attractiveness
Group size

As the number of people increases so
does conformity…


Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to
15 confederates in his many studies
Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the
amount of additional influence was negligible
Incompetent and insecure individuals

When one is made to feel incompetent or
insecure conformity is likely
Group’s status and attractiveness

Kind of goes without saying…if its a group
you want to be a part of – you will likely
conform to its opinions
Asch’s conclusions…conditions
that weaken conformity


Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect”
Independence
Presence of an ally


The presence of a true partner, who agreed with
the subject, reduced conformity by 80%
When we have an ally, we can diffuse the
pressure because we are not the only one
breaking the norm


Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s
convictions than when one is part of even a tiny
minority
Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to
conform
Independence


Some people care more about standing up
for their rights than being disliked
In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone
dissenter resisted the pressure to conform
Asch (1956)

Bottom-line Conclusion:


People faced with strong group consensus
sometimes go along even though they think
the others may be wrong
And these are strangers…what if they were
member’s of your own circle of friends?
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif:


Because of ambiguity, participants turned to
each other for guidance
Asch:


Participants often found themselves in an
awkward position
It was obvious that group was wrong
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif (moving light)

Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer
Reasonable to consider other’s views
 Participants later adopted social norms



Conformity leads to internalization
Asch (parallel lines)

Participants knew there was a correct
answer

Conformity does not lead to internalization
Types of Conformity

Private Conformity:


Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs
Public Conformity:

Superficial change in overt behavior only
Types of Conformity
Active and Public Commitments

Students in one experiment were asked to
judge lines in an Asch-type experiment

Before hearing group members make
erroneous judgments:
Some privately wrote down their judgments
(Active Commitment Only)
 Others wrote their judgments and gave them to
the experimenter (Active plus Public Commitment)

% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
Public Commitments
Of those who made NO
COMMITMENT to their
original decisions, only
about half stuck with
them in the face of group
pressure
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
100%
Making a PRIVATE
COMMITMENT
increased the likelihood
of sticking to the original
correct judgment
Public Commitments
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
Active
Only
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
100%
Making the commitment
PUBLIC further
increased the likelihood
of resisting group
pressure
Public Commitments
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
Active
Only
Active Plus
Public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Majority Influence: Awareness of
Norms


Conform only when we know about and
focus on social norms
Often misperceive what is normative

Pluralistic ignorance
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)

Studies of attitude
 “Free speech being a privilege rather than
a right, it is proper for a society to suspend
free speech when it feels threatened”
 19% agreed with statement in private
 58% agreed under pressure of group
influence
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)

Statement presented to Army leaders:
“I doubt whether I would make a good leader”




None agreed with statement in private
37% agreed under group pressure
BUT
When Ss were presented with judgements again
in private most reverted to their pre-group
answers
No permanent attitude change as result of
experiment
PERRIN & SPENCER (1980)

Critique of Asch experiments
 Failure to replicate ‘line’ experiments with
British engineering, maths and chemistry
students (6 confederates, 1 Ss)

Only 1 out of 396 trials did a Ss join the
erroneous majority
Stresses cultural rather than personality
factors in explaining conformity
Neto (1995)

This study aimed at investigating whether conformity in
the experimental setting suggested by Asch was
particularly related to American culture and less likely to
be replicable elsewhere - e.g. in Portugal - as has been
suggested more recently
 Participants:
 Asch's classic conformity and independence
experiment was replicated, using women
psychology students in a Portuguese university
 Procedure:
 The original procedure was re-enacted as similarly
as possible using a computer program
Neto (1995)

Results:


Among participants in the experimental condition
59% conformed at least once, 28% yielded three to
twelve times
 Thus this shows that a degree of conformity to a
unanimous peer-group opinion remains observable
Participants reported considerable distress under the
group pressure
Asch Effect

Bottom Line:
 Asch effect appears to be an unpredictable
phenomenon rather than a stable tendency of
human behavior
Minority influence


Minority influence exemplified in TV play &
film “Twelve Angry Men”
12 jurors have to decide over the guilt or
innocence of a young man charged with the
murder of his father.



At outset of the play a single juror in the murder
trial favours acquittal, other 11 jurors favour
conviction
By end of play unanimously ‘not guilty’
The minority (of 1) has influenced a majority
jury
Minority influence and social
change

Most instances of minority influence or
innovation cannot be accounted for by the
same mechanisms that explain majority
influence




(Moscovici, 1976)
Minorities are few in number
No normative control over the majority
More likely to be ridiculed by the majority than taken
seriously
Perceived as ‘weirdo’s

Seem to have access to the same informational and normative
means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority
How do minorities influence others?

Minorities influence others through their
own behavioral style:



Make their proposition clear at the outset
Stick to their original proposition
Withstand the majority influence
DEL MAR, California (March 26, 1997)


39 cult members were found dead in a
hilltop mansion
They apparently died in a carefully
orchestrated suicide that involved
sedatives, vodka and plastic bags possibly
used to suffocate
Together forever???


In 1994, members began
to talk more openly about
leaving Earth for what
they called "The Kingdom
Level Above Human,"
which they said was a
"real, physical" place
Pictured to the right is
their leader, Marshall
Applewhite
He got people to conform to his beliefs…




“Hale-Bopp's (comet) approach is the ‘marker’ we've
been waiting for -- the time for the arrival of the
spacecraft from the Level Above Human to take us home
to ‘Their World’ -- in the literal Heavens”
Our 22 years of classroom here on planet Earth is finally
coming to conclusion -- "graduation" from the Human
Evolutionary Level
They believed that a spaceship was following the comet
and they were happily prepared to leave
They committed the mass suicide so that their spirits
could board the ship
Other less extreme examples of
conformity…


TV comedies that use canned laughter –
research shows that it works
Bartenders and street musicians will often
place money in their tip jars or hats –
again research shows that this works
Compliance

Changes in behavior that are elicited by
direct requests
The Language of Requests


Talking fast and catching people off guard
can improve compliance rates
People can be disarmed by the simple
phrasing of the request


How you ask for something can be more
important than what you ask for
Langer et al (1978): We often respond
mindlessly to words without fully processing
the information they are supposed to convey
Langer et al. (1978)
Percentage
That Complied
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No Reason
Reason Given
Irrelevant
Reason
May I Use the Xerox Machine?
Norm of Reciprocity

The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates
that we treat others as they have treated
us.


This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay
for acts of kindness, even when unsolicited.
Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived.
Commitment-Based Tactics
The Foot-in-the-Door Technique
 The Low-Ball Technique
 The Bait and Switch Technique
 Labeling Technique

The “Foot-in-the-Door” Technique


A technique which increases compliance
with a large request by first getting
compliance with a smaller, related request
Example:


People are first asked to wear a tiny button
supporting a worthy cause
Later they are asked to put a billboard on
their lawn
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
Gain Target’s
Compliance
With a Small
Request
example:
“Would you
sign a petition
to help feed
starving exCEOs?”
SECOND STEP
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
Gain Target’s
Compliance
With a Small
Request
Make A
Related,
Larger
Request
Would you sign
a petition to
help feed
starving exCEOs?
“Would you
work for 2
weeks in the
CEO soup
kitchen?”
The Foot-in-the-Door Technique


Compliance with the
initial request
changes one’s selfimage to be
consistent with that
first favor
It would be
inconsistent with
this image to refuse
the second request

Freedman & Fraser
(1966)

See chart to
right…
60
50
40
Percent That
30
Complied
20
10
0
Intrusive Only
Initial, then Intrusive
Request Made
The Low-Ball Technique


After making an active choice for
something, people take “mental
possession” of it and it becomes part of
their self-concept
It is often easier to continue with the
commitment than to change the selfconcept
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
Get an
Agreement to a
Specific
Arrangement
Get Customer
to Agree to Buy
a New Car for
$15,000
SECOND STEP
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
Get an
Agreement to a
Specific
Arrangement
Change The
Terms of The
Arrangement
Get Customer
to Agree to Buy
a New Car for
$25,000
“Oh, you
wanted tires
and seats?
Then that’ll
be $27,999.”
Cialdini et al. (1978)
60
50
40
Percent That
30
Volunteered
20
10
0
Told 7 a.m. First
Told 7 a.m. Later
The Bait and Switch Technique


The Bait and Switch gets people to accept
a deal they would have dismissed if it had
been offered first
It works by getting people to make a
commitment to a general course of action

For example: buying a new stereo
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
Advertise a Low
Price on a New
Stereo
Spur The
Target to Take
a Course of
Action
SECOND STEP
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
Advertise a Low
Price on a New
Stereo
“That stereo
is junk, but
just $99 more
buys this
beauty!”
Spur The
Target to Take
a Course of
Action
Describe
Course as
Unwise,
Suggest
Alternative
Labeling Technique


The label (e.g. “you are generous”)
activates a favorable self-image
This motivates the person to act in ways
that are consistent with that self-image (to
be generous)
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
“You Are A
Very Generous
Person!”
Assign The
Target a Trait
Label
SECOND STEP
TACTIC
Foot-inthe-Door
Low-Ball
Bait and
Switch
Labeling
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
“You Are A
Very Generous
Person!”
“Say, Can
You
Contribute to
the ex-CEO
fund?”
Assign The
Target a Trait
Label
Seek
Compliance
With a LabelConsistent
Request
The Door in the Face Technique

Beginning with a large request then
following up with a lesser request…
 Cialdini (2000)
 Boy Scout may have tricked this social
psychologist
“That’s Not All, Folks!”
Technique

Person begins with a somewhat inflated
request; then immediately decreases the
apparent size of the request by offering a
discount or bonus
Burger (1986)
80
70
60
50
Sales
40
30
20
10
0
75 Cents
Reduced to 75 cents
Price of Cupcakes
Assertiveness:
When People Say No

To be able to resist the trap of compliance
techniques, one must:



Be vigilant
Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity
Compliance techniques work smoothly
only if they are hidden from view
Obedience

Milgram (1963)


Obedience experiments
The behavior change that comes in response
to a demand from an authority figure
Obedience

Most authority figures have been given their
authority by society


We are just told to follow what they tell you to do
Every person at some time in their life has
followed a superior without questioning why
they are doing what they are doing


For example we never question why we take tests in
school
We just take them because we are told to do so
Milgram’s questionnaire…




Everyone answering Milgram's questionnaire
said they would refuse to punish the learner
They also believed that other people would
disobey
Most people reject unnecessary pain and
therefore would not follow brutal orders
The responses of college students, psychiatrists,
and middle-class adults all predicted that only
1% or 2% of the general population would obey
such orders fully, administering the highest
shock available
Milgram Obedience
Experiments


Psychiatrists guessed
that 1 in 1000 would
go clear to 450 volts
(only “true
psychopaths”)
But, in the original
study, 26/40 went all
the way
Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment
Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.
What would you have done?

Don’t commit
the
Fundamental
Attribution
Error!
Factors Affecting Obedience in original study

Prestige and status of authority figure


Person giving orders was close at hand


Milgram was right there
Victims were depersonalized


Supported by prestigious institution
Out of sight
Presence of others who disobey

Here, no role models who disobeyed
In replications…

Legitimacy of Authority


Proximity of Authority Figure


When Milgram gave commands by telephone, compliance
dropped to 21%
Emotional Distance



When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%
When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to
40%
When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance
fell to 30%
Group Influence

When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only 10% of
real subjects fully complied with the orders
Factors That
Influence Obedience
Based on information in Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram (c) 1974. Reprinted with permission..
Explanations for Obedience

Cognitive Dissonance



Behavior (shocking learner)
conflicted with belief (learner is a
decent person)
So solution is to alter belief:
“He’s such an idiot he deserves to
get shocked”
The experimental procedure
itself


Participants were led to feel
relieved of personal responsibility
for the victim’s welfare
Gradual escalation of shocks was
used

Which technique already
discussed did Milgram utilize?
Milgram’s Experiments


Relevance of Milgram’s research to today’s
society…
Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s
obedience experiments…


Milgram’s participants were tormented by
experience
Well, Milgram reported that 84 percent of
subjects later said they were glad to have
participated
The Learner’s Protests
The Prods Used in
Milgram’s Experiment




“Please continue”
“The experiment requires that you
continue”
“It is absolutely essential that you
continue”
“You have no other choice; you must
go on”
The Obedient Participant


No gender differences observed in level of
obedience
Milgram’s basic findings have been
replicated in several different countries
and among different age groups
Social Impact Theory

Latané (1981)

Social influence depends on three factors:
 The strength of the source
 The immediacy of the source to the target
in time and space
 The number of sources
Perspectives on Human Nature


Are people generally malleable or unyielding?
 Cultural differences
 Some cultures value autonomy and
independence whereas others place more
emphasis on conformity to one’s group
 Within a given culture, these values can
change over time
Some pictures and slides in this presentation prepared by:
http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/USculture/980623conformity.gif
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/milgram/conform.htm