8 Key excerpts on "Conformity"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Influences

  • Kevin Wren(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  2

  Conformity

  Introduction Mustafer Sherif and informational social influences Solomon Asch and normative social influences Informational and normative influences Richard Crutchfield Conformity/non-Conformity and physiology Factors that may influence the degree of Conformity Evaluation of Conformity experiments Explaining the Conformity effect Summary

  Introduction

  Throughout our daily lives we conform, i.e. we behave in response to the perceived pressure of others. We queue, wait at bus stops and conform to road signs. In other situations our Conformity is subtler. When in a group we often ‘go with the flow’ while at the same time having some private reservations about what we are doing. In such face-to-face contact with a group we are under pressure to conform to the beliefs, actions and attitudes of the ‘greater’ group. In this respect our behaviour can be governed by a number of social influences of which obedience and Conformity to group influences are examples. We need to be careful here not to confuse behaviour changed as a result of Conformity and behaviour changed as a result of obedience. Although definitions differ slightly from psychologist to psychologist the following differences can be observed:

  •  In Conformity situations behaviour changes as a result of group pressure, despite there being no explicit requirement on the part of individual participants to change. In this respect behaviour within the group becomes more homogenous.

  •  In obedience situations behaviour changes as a result of the explicit instructions of an authority figure, i.e. the experimenter. In this respect behaviour arises out of the fact that social structure is differentiated, i.e. the experimenter begins with a higher status. (after Evans, 1980)

  In this chapter we are going to examine material that deals with behaviour altered as a result of manipulating group pressure, i.e. Conformity.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Psychology

  Fourth Edition

  • Eliot R. Smith, Diane M. Mackie, Heather M. Claypool(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Private Conformity occurs when people are truly persuaded that the group is right, when they willingly and privately accept group norms as their own beliefs, even if the group is no longer physically present. When participants in Sherif’s study adopted their group’s standard opinion regarding the movement of the light, even though there was no pressure to do so, they showed private Conformity. Remember that they used the group norm as their personal standard as much as a year later, when they were asked to judge the light movements in the absence of other group members.

  Conformity

  the convergence of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, or behavior toward a social norm

  private Conformity

  private acceptance of social norms

  public Conformity

  overt behavior consistent with social norms that are not privately accepted

  Sometimes, however, Conformity occurs because we feel we have no choice but to go along with social norms.

  Public Conformity

  occurs when people respond to real or imagined pressure and behave consistently with norms that they do not privately accept as correct. Public Conformity produces only a surface change: People pretend to go along with the group norm in what they say or do, but privately they do not think the group is right. People publicly conform because they fear ridicule, rejection, incarceration, or worse. Those of Asch’s participants who went along with the incorrect majority view to avoid seeming ridiculous were publicly conforming, as are political dissidents who survive by paying lip service to the party line even though they do not agree with it.

  HOT TOPICS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: THE SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE OF Conformity

  New technologies in social neuroscience are revealing what social influence looks like in the brain. Such studies typically assess activity in different parts of the brain while or after participants are exposed to information about others’ responses, views, or opinions. Such studies show the profound effects of Conformity on the way we view the world. In one illustrative study, Jamil Zaki, Jessica Schirmer, and Jason Mitchell (2011) had participants rate the attractiveness of multiple faces and then learn how other students like them had allegedly evaluated each face. Participants then rated the faces for a second time, this time while in an fMRI scanner. The second set of ratings showed a typical Conformity effect: participants’ own ratings of each face moved toward their peers’ judgments. The brain activity that accompanied these new judgments indicated that exposure to descriptive social norms actually changed participants’ neural representation of the stimuli’s value—good evidence of private acceptance, a change in the way the world was viewed because of social input (see also Edelson, Sharot, Dolan, & Dudai, 2011). Recent evidence from studies using EEG technology similarly shows that social influence appears to impact early unconscious visual perceptual processing, essentially changing the world that recipients of social input see (Trautmann-Lengsfeld & Herrmann, 2013). Social neuroscientists are also attempting to track the perspective taking and affective processes that underlie adoption of other people’s points of view (Stallen, Smidts, & Sanfey, 2013).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Psychology

  • Richard Gross, Rob McIlveen(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This implies that the change towards the group is accepted and approved by the group. Conforming to the expectations and norms of one group may be deviant in reference to another social group. In what follows, the classic experimental techniques used to measure and demonstrate Conformity will be outlined. Factors affecting Conformity and resistance to group pressures will be explored and finally some explanations offered by social psychologists as to why people conform will be considered. 8.3.1   The autokinetic effect Sherif (1936) demonstrated that people conform to group norms when they find themselves in highly ambiguous, novel situations. To show this, he made use of what is known as the autokinetic effect : placed in an otherwise dark room with a spotlight projected onto a screen, the stationary spot of light appears to move. The judgements made by participants when alone in the room about the extent of movement show great variability. A single person repeating the task many times develops a standard range into which most judgements fall. However, different people develop different ranges, for example, one participant may develop a range of 20–30 cm whilst another a range of 60–80 cm. The influence of group norms was investigated by putting three people together, two whose standard range was very similar and one whose range was very different, and then asking them to announce aloud their individual estimates of movement of the light. Sherif found that over numerous trials at this task in these conditions, the group converged on a common range and the range was very similar to that of the two initially sharing a similar range. In effect, the ‘deviant’ person conformed to the group norm. This is shown in Figure 8.2. In a further study, Sherif found Conformity to the majority group judgement to occur much more quickly when they had no prior experience of the task and hence had not developed a ‘frame of reference’

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  A Lexicon of Psychology, Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis

  • Jessica Kuper, Jessica Kuper(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Conformity

  DOI: 10.4324/9781315677101-35

  Early attempts to explain the many uniformities observable in human social behaviour in terms of either a limited number of instincts (McDougall) or some general principle of learning such as imitation or suggestion (Tarde, Le Bon) proved to be unsatisfactory because they were essentially circular explanations. Research on Conformity per se did not commence until the question of accounting for regularities in behaviour was tackled experimentally in the laboratory.

  In the 1930s Sherif investigated, under laboratory conditions, the formation and functioning of social norms. He chose a task, based on the autokinetic effect, for which there were no pre-established norms or standards which might aid his subjects in making their judgements. When a fixed point of light is viewed in an otherwise totally darkened room it will appear to move. Sherif's subjects had to estimate, in inches, the extent of this apparent movement. Individuals, making a series of such judgements alone, established their own particular norm. When several such individuals subsequently performed the task in each other's presence, a convergence in their estimates was noted, i.e. the emergence of a group norm. Other individuals, who made their initial estimates under group conditions, subsequently maintained the group norm when responding alone. It was Durkheim who had first identified the state of ‘anomie’ or normlessness. Sherif, by selecting the autokinetic effect, was able to investigate scientifically this social phenomenon, and he demonstrated how a social norm acts as a frame of reference to guiding individual action.

  Enlightened liberals, who value the autonomy of the individual, disliked a possible implication of Sherif's findings: that humans are gullible. Asch, in the early 1950s, hoped to demonstrate individual autonomy by removing the ambiguity in the stimuli to be judged. Naive subjects in his experiment found themselves, on certain critical trials, in a minority of one when making simple judgements about the equivalence of length of lines. They were unaware of the fact that the other participants were, in reality, stooges of the experimenter who, on the preselected trials, were unanimous in making a wrong choice. On each trial the naive subject responded either last or last but one. On approximately two-thirds of the occasions when this conflict occurred, the naive subject remained independent. So Asch had proved his point. Or had he? It was the minority response in the Asch situation, however, that riveted people's attention i.e. yielding to the opinion of the false majority. Individuals differed quite widely in the extent to which they conformed. That naive subjects should conform on as many as a third of such occasions deeply shocked many Americans and also, one suspects, Asch himself.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Motivation-Cognition Interface

  From the Lab to the Real World: A Festschrift in Honor of Arie W. Kruglanski

  • Catalina E. Kopetz, Ayelet Fishbach, Catalina E. Kopetz, Ayelet Fishbach(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  2

  The Motivation-Cognition Interface in Conformity and Deviance

  Hans-Peter Erb

  Social influence phenomena lie at the very heart of the human nature and are thus a major theme in social psychology as a scientific discipline. Social psychologists have long been aware of the fact that influencing other individuals and being influenced by others are the necessary conditions of coordinated action. Social influence makes possible those achievements by groups, societies, and even mankind that require more than a single individual’s motivation, will, decision, and execution. On the downside, individuals’ sensitivity to what others feel, think, and do often results in effects seen as unwanted or even unwarranted. For example, the French sociologist Le Bon (1895/1960) presented a theory of “crowd behavior” according to which a mass of people can take command of an individual’s self-control and personal responsibility. Interestingly, such negative effects of social influence were historically the first to attract researchers (see Pratkanis, 2007). At the latest, with the seminal studies and the by then astonishing results of Solomon Asch (1956), the social influence that a majority of others would exert on individual judgments entered social psychological research and was thereafter examined under the term Conformity . It was not before Moscovici’s (1980) formulation of his conversion theory (CT) that the influence of a minority of others also began to attract scientific attention. As going along with the minority contradicts what can be seen as the norm of “shared reality” (Echterhoff, Higgins, & Levine, 2009; Hardin & Higgins, 1996), it can be termed deviance . Conformity, as the mechanism that often secures social stability, and deviance, at times resulting in social change, build the major themes of the present chapter.

  In 1990, Arie W. Kruglanski and Diane M. Mackie (Kruglanski & Mackie, 1990) published a paper in the European Review of Social Psychology

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Persuasion

  Social Influence and Compliance Gaining

  • Robert H. Gass, John S. Seiter(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  We imagine that, if nothing else, being a member of a cult satisfies a need to belong. Cults often attract new members by providing seemingly loving environments for their new recruits. Along with this, however, comes pressure to fit in. With such pressure, it’s easy to see how a cult member might have been sucked into the suicide. When you identify so strongly with people who are carrying out some action, the action not only seems more “right,” it becomes necessary for you to participate if you want to be part of the group. This is true not only in cults, a topic we revisit later in this chapter, but in other social collectives as well. Families, peer groups, workplaces, even classrooms, exert strong pressure on their members to behave in certain ways. For that reason, this chapter examines the role of groups in the process of social influence. We begin by discussing the topic of Conformity.

  Conformity AS PERSUASION: IN WITH THE CROWD

  During a lecture by a sociology professor, in a classroom that held more than 100 people, an undergraduate student, known by both of your authors, removed his shirt, pants, shoes, and socks. Then, almost naked, he stood in the aisle, waiting to be noticed. The professor, who had been looking down at his notes, did not notice our friend until other people in the classroom began gasping and laughing. When the professor finally did look up, he was stunned. Undaunted, the nearly naked student looked down at himself and asked, “Does this count?”

  Apparently, just before the student disrobed, the professor had been lecturing on the topic of norms and Conformity. Norms are expectations held by a group of people about what behaviors or opinions are right or wrong, good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, appropriate or inappropriate (Andrews, 1996). Once norms are understood, we feel pressure to conform to them. Of course, the professor had probably explained to our friend and his other students that some norms are explicit. Explicit norms are written or spoken openly. For example, road signs indicate how fast you are permitted to drive and game rules may send you to jail without collecting $200. Some norms, however, are implicit

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Psychology: A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself

  • Paul Seager(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Teach Yourself

    (Publisher)

  Social psychologists study why people are influenced by others and the mechanisms responsible. They also investigate what factors might affect people’s tendency to be influenced. Generally speaking, three types of social influence exist: Conformity, obedience and compliance. This chapter will look at the first two and the next chapter will address the third.

  Conformity

  As has been suggested, doing something simply because everyone else is doing it is generally not a bad strategy – it is sometimes the best way to get on in life. Social psychologists refer to this type of behaviour as ‘Conformity’ or ‘majority influence’.

  Key idea: Conformity

  An individual will change their attitudes or behaviour in order to adhere to existing social norms.

  One of the earliest studies in this area was conducted by Muzafer Sherif, and utilized the autokinetic effect. Participants were seated alone in a dark room, a light was switched on, and they were asked to report how far they perceived the light had moved. They did this a number of times before the session was completed, and an average was recorded as to the distance that they perceived the light had moved (although it had actually remained stationary the entire time).

  Key idea: The autokinetic effect

  An optical illusion occurring whereby a stationary light appears to move in a completely dark room.

  They were asked to return at a later time when they were again seated in the dark room, but this time two other participants (who had also previously taken part in the solitary condition) were also seated in the room. The light was switched on a number of times and the three participants were asked to report aloud as to how far the light had moved. They took it in turns to answer first, second or third.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Attraction and Hostility

  An Experimental Analysis of Interpersonal and Self Evaluation

  • Anton Pelinka, Albert Pepitone, Anton Pelinka(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Still another result of these fruitful studies is relevant to the question of a cognitive-validation motivation. Within rather definite limits, as the size of the majority increased, the amount of Conformity increased. One interpretation is that, from the subject’s point of view, the sheer number of persons comprising the norm affects its reliability and validity as a criterion for estimating the correct line lengths. When two persons make a credible assertion, it is more likely to be accepted as true than when only one person makes the same assertion. If such a result was observed in private, where the subject could respond without fear of social punishment, the cognitive interpretation would be strengthened. A public response, however, could mean that the severity of a status threat increases with the size of the majority.

  Opinion Conformity

  With respect to the dynamics of opinion formation and change, Festinger (1950) made explicit what was implicit in Sherif’s earlier work in the area of physical judgments. He proposed that individuals have a need to validate—to establish the truth of—their opinions. When a difference of opinion occurs and there is no objective standard available, there is a tendency for individuals to seek agreement with others. Such uniformity serves as a social standard for the verification of opinions. For many of the reasons already discussed, however, it has been difficult to confirm this cognitive, “social-reality” hypothesis experimentally.

  An experiment by Festinger, Gerard, Hymovitch, Kelley, and Raven (1952) attempted to check a key implication of the hypothesis. If opinion Conformity stems from a need to validate opinions, providing the individual with potential resources for objective validation—that is, reducing his dependence on the social environment—should affect his Conformity or his behavior designed to make others conform. Two variables which theoretically might affect social dependence were manipulated in a setup where subjects were given to believe there was a difference of opinion among them concerning a labor-management problem. Under one experimental condition, subjects were told there were experts on labor-management problems present in the group. Under such circumstances, it was thought that subjects would not require uniformity in the opinion of the group as a whole to establish the validity of their opinions. Rather, they would need to agree only with those whom they guessed to be experts. In the aggregate, this would lead to fewer attempts to influence others in order to bring about uniformity. In fact, fewer interpersonal communications were found under most of the “expert-present” conditions. In a second experimental condition, subjects were led to believe that a correct answer existed for the labor-management problem. Here again, although in a different form, there was a potential means for the objective verification of opinions and, therefore, less social dependence for the satisfaction of the cognitive need presumably operating. A general trend toward fewer communicated words was shown under these conditions.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book