Normative Social Influence

12 Key excerpts on "Normative Social Influence"

• 

  Available until 29 Sep |Learn more

  Essential Social Psychology

  • Richard J. Crisp, Rhiannon N. Turner(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  5 Social Influence

  • Social Norms 108
    • Norm Development 108
  • Conformity 112
    • Asch’s Conformity Experiment 113
    • Explaining Conformity 114
    • Factors that Moderate Conformity 116
    • Impact of Influence on Social Norms 120
  • Minority Influence 125
    • Consistency and Confidence 125
    • How Minorities Exert Influence 127
  • Obedience 128
    • Milgram’s Study of Obedience 128
    • Explaining Obedience 130
    • Determinants of Obedience 131
  • Social Impact Theory 133
    • Norms as Nudges 133
  • Chapter Summary 134

  When, why and how is people’s behaviour influenced by the presence of others? How do other people influence our own behaviour?

  Social influence

  is all about how our thoughts, feelings and behaviours change when in the presence of others. Social influence is an umbrella term. It refers to any effect that another person or group has on your own attitudes and behaviours. In this chapter, two types of social influence will be discussed: conformity and obedience. Both are concerned with the same outcome: a change in behaviour. They differ in that

  conformity

  is used to describe attitude or behaviour change in response to an implied, rather than explicit, social norm. In contrast,

  obedience

  is attitude or behaviour change in response to a direct, or explicit, order. We will see how both majorities and minorities can exert influence on each other, how there are different motivations for following social norms, and how all these interrelated ideas come together to predict social influence in any given context.

  Social Norms

  Norm Development

  Some of the very earliest studies in social psychology were on the topic of social influence. Sherif (1935) carried out a classic study to investigate how groups might come to have what are apparently consensual and homogenized beliefs. His experiment had two phases. Participants were initially led to believe that the experiment concerned ‘visual perception’, although what Sherif was really interested in was the influence that other people in the context had on reported visual perception. Participants were led to a room which was pitch-black except for a small dot of light on the far wall. The participants’ task was to make 100 judgements as to how far the dot was moving in inches. In fact, Sherif was making use of an established perceptual illusion called the ‘autokinetic effect’. This effect makes a dot appear to oscillate in a dark room when there is no other point of reference. Because there was no actual movement of the dot, the autokinetic effect provided an excellent experimental control: any observed effects on participants’ estimations of how far the dot moved could only be attributable to psychological factors. In this first phase when participants individually made their estimates there was, as expected, some variation in different

  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)

  In many religious communities, children who have reached an appropriate age go through some kind of ceremony, such as the Christian First Communion, the Jewish Bar or Bat Mitzvah, or the Hindu Sacred Thread ceremony. After these rituals, they are considered ready to participate fully in the rites of their community. The new members learn, through formal instruction or by observing others, how to speak, what thoughts and feelings are appropriate, and how to act. Knowing and following these standards allows them to take their place and fulfill their roles in the group. They experience a proud sense of belonging, as full members of their religious community.

  What people learn in such situations are descriptive and injunctive group norms. By adopting such norms, we demonstrate our commitment and connections to our new associates and our pride in “who we are” and “what we stand for.” A group has

  normative influence

  when members privately conform to it to attain a positive and valued social identity and to win respect from other group members (Turner, 1991). Normative influence thus satisfies our needs for connectedness because consensus provides and expresses our identity and values. Not surprisingly, then, the presence of the hormone oxytocin, which plays a significant role in human bonding, increases conformity to one’s group (Stallen, De Dreu, Shalvi, Smidts, & Sanfey, 2012). The desire to be a valued member of a group is so strong that people typically adopt group norms whenever they are reminded of their membership in a group that is important to them (Ledgerwood & Chaiken, 2007; Livingstone, Haslam, Postmes, & Jetten, 2011).

  normative influence

  the process by which group norms are privately accepted to achieve or maintain connectedness and a valued social identity

  And with good reason: there are many connectedness benefits of conformity to group norms. Conforming to in-group norms makes people feel good, whereas finding out you disagree with a group you value, identify with, and feel connected to lowers self-esteem and well-being (Matz & Wood, 2005; Pool, Wood, & Leck, 1998; Sassenberg, Matschke, & Scholl, 2011). To demonstrate this effect, researchers had single participants work on a puzzle at the same time as a confederate did. Perhaps because the study seemed to be about individual problem solving, the participants did not help the confederate, even though the confederate obviously could not solve the puzzle. Experimenters then told the participants that they had either conformed to or violated an in-group norm by not offering help. Participants whose lack of help was labeled as conforming to the group norm reported feeling more positive emotions than students whose lack of help was labeled as violating group norms. And as we might expect if conformity confers connectedness, these effects were stronger for people who identified more closely with the group (Christensen, Rothgerber, Wood, & Matz, 2004). Those who do endorse group norms are admired by fellow group members and accorded more influence in the group (Levinger & Schneider, 1969; Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1998; Rubin, 2012). No wonder then that marginal members of a group—those whose connectedness is called into question or whose sense of belonging has been threatened by feelings of exclusion or ostracism—are more likely to conform when given the opportunity (DeWall, 2010; Heerdink, van Kleef, Homan, & Fischer, 2013; Tam, Lee, Kim, Li, & Chao, 2012).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  An Introduction to Social Psychology

  • Miles Hewstone, Wolfgang Stroebe, Miles Hewstone, Wolfgang Stroebe(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • BPS Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  Coordination of goals and activities among group members is necessary for the group to move, as a group, effectively and efficiently in the direction it wants or needs to go. Consider conformity, going along with the group (which we introduced in Chapter 1 and will return to in more detail below). Even though it tends to have negative connotations in Western, individual societies (Markus & Kitayama, 1994), conformity can help us to achieve group goals quickly and easily (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Think for a few seconds how chaotic society would be in the complete absence of conformity. Festinger suggested that opinion discrepancies within groups elicit pressures towards uniformity, which produces communication between members of the group. Uniformity is achieved by group members convincing others to move towards their position, by themselves shifting towards the position held by others, or by redefining the group by rejecting those members who disagree (see Levine, 1989; Turner, 1991). normative influence influence based on conforming to the positive expectations of others: people avoid behaving in ways that will lead to social punishment or disapproval. Deutsch and Gerard (1955) proposed a simple but highly significant analysis of motives for social influence. They argued that people agree with others for normative or informational reasons. Normative influence presumes a need for social approval or harmony with others, and occurs when people conform to the positive expectations of others – they avoid behaving in ways that will lead to social punishment or disapproval. The main goal, then, is to build and maintain satisfactory relationships with others, and accuracy becomes correspondingly less important (Prislin & Wood, 2005). Informational influence presumes a need to reduce uncertainty, and involves accepting the information obtained from others as evidence about reality

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Groups in Action and Interaction

  2nd Edition

  • Charles Stangor(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  4 SOCIAL INFLUENCE

  Social influence refers to the pressure that we experience to think and behave in ways that are usual and expected within our social groups. Social influence can lead to conformity, but it doesn’t always. People like to be similar to others, but they also wish to maintain their own distinct personal identity.

  CONTENTS AT A GLANCE

  Social Influence Some Examples of Influence Motives for Conformity Informational Conformity Normative Conformity Differentiating Motives for Conformity Majority Influence Solomon Asch’s Line Perception Studies Determinants of Influence Minority Influence Minority Influence in Action Minority Influence and Creative Thinking Comparing Majority and Minority Influence Single-Process Approaches Dual-Process Approaches Summary Alternative Approaches for Minority Group Members Limits of Conformity Personality Variables Gender Differences in Conformity Psychological Reactance and Deviance Chapter Summary Review and Discussion Questions Recommended Reading

  As we saw in Chapter 1 , one of the most fundamental assumptions about social groups is that the members of those groups will be similar to one another, in the sense that they share important values and beliefs. Although this sharing occurs in part because similar individuals are likely to initially join or form groups, similarity is also increased over time, through the tendency for group members to act in ways that lead other group members to become even more similar to each other. The focus of this chapter is on when and how this change—known as social influence—occurs. We will see that social influence is a ubiquitous part of social life, occurring both in small working groups as well as in large social categories.

  SOCIAL INFLUENCE Social influence

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Behavioural Research for Marketing

  A Practitioner's Handbook

  • Julian Adams(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Rhetoric. The book was influential in informing the art of persuasion in its day. One of the earliest classifications of social influence is by the itinerant teachers/intellectuals of persuasion (the Sophists) dating back to the 5th century BC. In the 20th century, much of the research into social influence was carried out by sociologists. According to the functionalist sociologist, Talcott Parsons, there are social structures that direct social actions. Within the doctrine of functionalism, this is largely considered to be positive for society, whereby social influence is seen to be important in maintaining social equilibrium. In contrast, those from a Marxist school of thought argued that societal structures promote and subjugate individuals to conform to roles defined by social class systems. Today, the study of social influence is a field of interest to sociologists, psychologists and philosophers. Interestingly, the argument about whether societal influence is a force for good or not continues to this day.

  2.1 Social norms: understanding the unwritten rules we live by

  2.1.1 Defining social norms

  There exist a set of unwritten rules that guide behaviour in social settings. These rules are commonly known as social norms. There is considerable research into social norms, amongst both sociologists and psychologists, adopting different research philosophies and, consequently, different approaches to this field of human behaviour. The result is a rather fragmented approach, with no real consensus regarding the definition and influence of social norms on behaviour. Notwithstanding this, researchers agree on one thing, that social norms are important in influencing behaviour.

  In principle, it takes a sufficiently large number of people to subscribe to a particular behaviour, for that behaviour to be considered a social norm. Interestingly, a study by Leeds University would seem to suggest that it does not take that many people to influence behaviour. Researchers asked people to walk randomly along a large hall, with a few being given specific instructions on where to walk. Whilst participants were not allowed to communicate with each other and were told to keep an arm’s length apart, those with no instruction instinctively followed those who seemed to know where they were going. This would suggest that humans are prone to a form of herd behaviour, analogous to sparrows murmuring or sheep flocking. Remarkably, it was found that it took just 5% to influence a crowd’s direction, without the other 95% realising it (University of Leeds Press Office, 2008 ).

  In market research, we often assume that the decisions participants make are determined by informed and rational choices. Whilst to some extent this is true, decisions are often shaped by the expectations of others. In other words, the extent to which we might think behaviour is a product of free will is probably misplaced. Given this, researchers need to have an appreciation of the extent to which social norms are at play. In turn, this will help researchers to better understand the drivers of behaviour.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Great Ideas in Psychology

  A Cultural and Historical Introduction

  • Fathali M. Moghaddam(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Oneworld Publications

    (Publisher)

  15

  CONFORMITY TO GROUP NORMS

  Conformity , changes in behavior that arise from real or imagined group pressure, is the glue that holds society together. Each of us in our everyday life is repeatedly influenced by real or imagined group pressure. We listen without interrupting and speak only when we are called on by the teacher in a classroom; we wait in line until it gets to our turn to purchase concert tickets; we act respectfully in a house of worship; we search for a particular style of fashionable shoe in a particular fashionable color; we keep our hair long or short depending on the prevailing tastes of our times; we sometimes even nod agreement with views expressed by friends despite actually feeling differently on an issue. All such behaviors show that conformity to group norms is part and parcel of our everyday lives. Put another way, group norms decrease the degrees of freedom (as discussed in chapter 1 ) in a situation, so that people have a smaller range of behavioral options.

  There is good reason for the centrality of conformity in our everyday lives, since conformity has important practical advantages. Because most of us behave “correctly” most of the time, and generally “do the right thing,” we have a fairly good idea of what to expect from each other. That is, we mostly behave as others expect us to behave. As a consequence, we do not have continuously to spend energy trying to understand and predict every move others make. When we invite guests to our house for the first time, we are fairly certain they will enter only those parts of the house that are generally known to be open to guests. For example, such guests would typically not enter bedrooms uninvited. Conformity facilitates understanding and communication between people and allows individuals to interact and collaborate smoothly in groups, such as when hosts and guests interact at a party. Conformity helps to explain how separate individuals, each with private thoughts and experiences, tend to fit into regular and to some extent predictable patterns of interactions in the larger society.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  An Introduction to Social Psychology

  Global Perspectives

  • James Alcock, Stan Sadava(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  social norm, which subsequently exhibits very little variation. In other words, conformity in this case is the outcome of informational social influence and is accompanied by a reduction in the variability of the behaviour in question.

  Such conformity behaviour can occur even when other group members are not physically present. For example, Wiener, Carpenter and Carpenter (1957) first asked participants to select labels for some ambiguous designs, after which they were shown fictitious percentages said to represent the choices of other participants, people they had not met and would not meet. When asked to choose again, the labels chosen by the participants shifted in the direction of the ‘popular’ choices. The assumption that ‘if everybody is doing it, it must be right’ is sometimes referred to as the bandwagon effect. In real life, the bandwagon effect can escalate rapidly once a majority is seen to be acting in a common manner.

  Many aspects of our social world can be somewhat ambiguous at times. Being wrong can be uncomfortable, and being different is often perceived as being wrong. In situations of ambiguity, we frequently rely on the collective judgement of the majority for information about what is appropriate, and the result is increased conformity.

  Normative influence

  While it is of obvious benefit to be influenced by the group norm when one is deficient in information, conformity also frequently occurs simply because one does not want to stand out from the group. Peer pressure can be powerful, especially for children, but it is the rare adult who can escape it completely. The fear of being rejected by an important group is often enough to pull an individual’s behaviour back into line with the group norm. Yet, even when there is no fear of rejection, most people feel discomfort if they are alone in deviating from the group norm.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Introduction to Social Neuroscience

  • Stephanie Cacioppo, John T. Cacioppo(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Princeton University Press

    (Publisher)

  The likelihood of a fish surviving a predatory attack is enhanced when it can position itself in the middle of the group, where others are between itself and the predator. Given each member of the group has evolved to respond similarly, the middle of the group represents a moving target, and the path of each fish is influenced by the changing position of the others in the group. Social influences on foraging behavior have also been identified across species. 5, 6 We turn next to a specific form of social influence—conformity. 8.1 Conformity Conformity refers to a change in behavior or beliefs to be more similar to others around you, including what they are doing. Conformity refers to a form of social influence that is common in social species including honeybees, fish, birds, rodents, nonhuman primates, and humans. 7–12 Two forms of conformity have been identified in humans 13, 14 and animals. 15, 16 Pan-species distinctions between normative and informational conformity are summarized in table 8.1. Briefly, normative conformity refers to conformity that occurs to fit in with a group whether or not one agrees with the actions or beliefs of the group. Normative conformity serves to maintain or increase social interactions, affiliation, and/or protection, and to maintain a positive evaluation of themselves. Informational conformity, in contrast, refers to conformity that occurs for accuracy, such as following the crowd when one is uncertain how to exit a venue. Normative conformity reflects either the abandonment of personal preferences or behaviors to match alternatives exhibited by a majority of others, or copying the behavior of the majority with a higher probability than the proportional bias that was observed

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Psychology

  • Jane Callaghan, Lisa Lazard(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Learning Matters

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 5 Social influence: conformity, compliance and group processes

  Learning outcomes

  By the end of this chapter you should:

  – have an understanding of the concepts of conformity and compliance;

  – have a critical understanding of the operation of social influence in small groups and large groups;

  – be able to explore critically the way that social psychological research tends to portray social influence as a negative phenomenon;

  – demonstrate a critical understanding of the processes of minority influence;

  – be able to explain the way that crowds might shape behaviour, and how crowd behaviour in turn is constituted within a complex social context;

  – be able to apply theoretical material to an understanding of soldiers’ behaviour ‘under orders’, considering the role of agency in our understanding of social influence, and have built your oral communication skills and ability to build reasoned arguments through a debate on the question of crowd behaviour.

  Introduction

  One of the most frequently expressed anxieties that parents have about their children is to do with ‘peer pressure’ and ‘bad company’. Peer pressure is blamed for every teenage ill from smoking through underage sex to membership of occult groups. This anxiety seems to reflect concerns that, despite individual thoughts, feelings and values, other people still have the power to influence us. As we noted in Chapter 4 , social influence refers to the way that the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of one person (or a group of people) are influenced by the real, imagined or implied presence of other people. Three forms of social influence should be distinguished.

  1. Compliance

  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

  Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context

  The Role of Norms and Group Membership

  • Deborah J. Terry, Michael A. Hogg(Authors)
  • 1999(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  The assumption made by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) that there is effect independence—that is, that the effects of attitudes and norms are additive or independent of one another—is related to the issue of the psychological independence of the two constructs. People’s intentions to perform a behavior are proposed to be influenced by both their attitude toward the behavior and by the extent to which they perceive that significant others want them to perform the behavior. However, the effects of attitudes are seen to be independent of the effects of social influence. In other words, the strength of attitudinal influence is not considered to be influenced by, or dependent on, social influence. Theoretically, a more interesting proposal is the contingent consistency hypothesis (see Acock & DeFleur, 1972; Liska, 1984), which proposes that people are more likely to engage in behavior that is consistent with their attitudes if the normative climate supports the attitude. Several studies have provided some support for this hypothesis (e.g., Grube et al., 1986; Grube & Morgan, 1990); however, other studies have failed to find that norms moderate the effects of attitudes on intentions (e.g., Bagozzi & Schnedlitz, 1985), or they have found that the presence of contingent consistency effects varies as a function of some third variable such as extent of experience with the target behavior (Andrews & Kandel, 1979). Nevertheless, evidence of contingent consistency effects suggests further that attitudes and norms may be less independent than proposed by the theories of TRA and TPB—the perceived views of significant others may influence people’s willingness to express their attitudes behaviorally.

  The problems with the normative component of the TRA and TPB may be attributable to the way in which social influence is viewed by these models and by the wider field of attitude-behavior relations. This literature has largely ignored recent developments in basic social psychological understanding of social influence. Thus, it is not surprising that it is difficult to predict when, and in what way, norms should influence intentions or behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) conceptualization of subjective norms implies a social influence process whereby people bring their behavior into line with the behavioral expectations of important others. Thus, public compliance based on a need for social approval and acceptance is probably the underlying social influence process (Miniard & Cohen, 1981; Ryan, 1982), in other words, subjective norms influence behavior through normative influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kelley, 1952). Traditionally, social psychology has distinguished this type of social influence from informational influence, which occurs when people privately accept and internalize information from others because the information provides a basis for correct perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs. Recently it has been argued (e.g., Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Turner, 1987b; Turner, 1991) that such a dual-process model of social influence is problematic, in that it may conceptually compartmentalize facets of social norms that need to be conceptualized in terms of a single process. We would argue that the notion of norms in the TRA and TPB should be reconceptualized to go beyond the focus on normative influence—that is, away from the view of norms as external prescriptions that are linked to behavior to the extent that one believes that one’s behavior is observable by valued others. One way in which this might be done is in terms of SIT and self-categorization theory, which propose a single process model of social influence. This perspective has the potential to predict when norms should influence behavior and also to articulate the more complex role that norms may play in attitude-behavior relations.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Psychology For Dummies

  • Daniel Richardson(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • For Dummies

    (Publisher)

  Although a mass of arbitrary reasons can lie behind individual social norms, and people often copy one another simply to create the feeling of belonging, sometimes real value exists in imitating those around you: for example, think of the first time you went to a sushi restaurant and didn’t know what to do with the soy sauce and wasabi. In this section, I discuss three common reasons why people conform to social norms: mimicry, conforming to acquire information and conformity to avoid not fitting in.

  Doing impressions: The urge to mimic

  One reason for the spread and perpetuation of social norms is that human beings seem to like copying each other. If you interact with another person for more than a few moments, usually you start to speak at the same speed as them, use the same words and even pick up a little of their accent. You position your body in the same way, crossing your arms or putting your hands in your pockets if the other person does. If you’re standing, the chances are that you start to sway in time with them.

  These movements may be imperceptible to a casual observer, but they can be measured in the laboratory. Research even shows that when you call a friend in a distant city and you’re both walking and talking on your mobile phones, your steps fall in time with each other.

  Just how automatic mimicry behaviour is, however, is debated in social psychology. Research is trying to untangle whether people always engage in some level of mimicry, or only copy people when they have a particular goal, such as impressing them or making friends. What is well established, though, is that mimicry seems closely related to feelings of affiliation and liking. People do it from very early in life – perhaps as soon as they come out of the womb – and mimic each other in every country on earth. I explore mimicry in terms of persuasion in more detail in Chapter 14 .

  The research suggests that mimicry serves as a sort of social group, bonding individuals to each other. If you’ve ever sung with a concert crowd or chanted with thousands of football supporters, then you’ve probably experienced the positive feeling of doing the same thing at the same time as a large number of people.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book