© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 8 Conformity: Influencing Behaviour.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Chapter 8Chapter 8Chapter 8Chapter 8

Conformity: Conformity:

Influencing BehaviourInfluencing Behaviour


Chapter OutlineChapter Outline

I. Conformity: When and Why


Conformity: When and WhyConformity: When and Why

Most of us probably conform more than we realize.Conformity is a change in behaviour due to the real or imagined influence of others.

There are two main reasons why people conform:

• informational social influence

• normative social influence



II. Informational Social Influence: The Need to Know What’s “Right”


Informational Social InfluenceInformational Social Influence

Informational social influence is the influence of other people that leads us to conform because we see them as a source of information to guide our behaviour.

We conform because we believe that others’ interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more correct than ours and will help us choose an appropriate course of action (see Sheriff, 1936 autokinetic effect study; Fig. 8.1).



An important feature of informational social influence is that it can lead to private acceptance.

Private acceptance: conforming to other people’s behaviour out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right.

Public acceptance: conforming to other people’s behaviour publicly, without necessarily believing in what they are doing, or saying.



When Will People Conform to Informational Social Influence?

What kinds of situations are most likely to produce conformity due to informational social influence?• When the situation is ambiguous (see

Somalia peacekeeping incident).

• When the situation is a crisis (see War of the Worlds broadcast).

• When other people are experts (but experts are not always right, e.g., Y2K problem).



When Informational Conformity Backfires

Using other people as a source of information can backfire—if they are misinformed, then we too will adopt their mistakes and misinterpretations.

An example of misdirected informational social influence is mass psychogenic illness.

Mass psychogenic illness is the occurrence, in a group of people, of similar physical symptoms with no known physical cause (see school children example).



Resisting Informational Social Influence

Not everybody conforms to informational social influence.

For those that do, it influences their interpretation of reality, i.e., they interpret the situation differently depending upon whether they conform with other people’s assessments or not (see Buchler & Griffin, 1994 stolen car study; Fig. 8.2).



III. Normative Social Influence: the Need to Be Accepted


Normative Social InfluenceNormative Social Influence

Normative social influence occurs because we want to remain a member of the group, continue to gain the advantages of group membership, and avoid the pain of ridicule and rejection.

Normative social influence: the influence of other people that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them.

This type of conformity results in public compliance with the group’s beliefs and behaviours, but not necessarily with private acceptance of the group’s beliefs and behaviours.



We conform to a group’s social norms, the implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviours, values, and beliefs of its members.

Members in good standing conform to these rules.

Normative social influence is another reason why soldiers in Canada’s Airborne Regiment participated in the brutal beating death of Shidance Arone,

And why high-school students in Victoria participated in the brutal beating death of Reena Virk.



Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies

It is not surprising that we would conform to the norms of a group when the group is important to us, and we want the group members to like and accept us.

But, what about when we hardly care about the group, and we don’t need to look to the group for any guidance on how to behave, will we still conform?

Yes, according to Asch’s line study (see Asch, 1951; Fig. 8.3, Fig 8.4).



Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies

People conform because they do not want to risk social disapproval, i.e., do not want to look foolish—even to complete strangers they will never see again.

Normative social pressures usually result in public compliance without private acceptance.

Conformity drops dramatically when participants are allowed to write their answers on a piece of paper instead of saying them out loud.



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence?

We do not conform in all situations. The question arises, when are people most likely to conform to normative pressures?

Latané’s social impact theory suggests that conforming to normative pressures depends on the 1)strength,

2)immediacy, and

3)number of other people in a group.




Latané’s social impact theory predicts that conformity will increase as strength and immediacy increase.

However, as size increases, each additional person has less of an influencing effect—going from 3 to 4 people makes more of a difference than going from 53 to 54 people.




Latané (1981) constructed a mathematical model that captures these hypothesized effects of strength, immediacy, and number, and has applied this formula to the results of many conformity studies.

The formula generally predicts conformity well.



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Group Size

What number of people is needed to produce maximum conformity? It depends on the kind of conformity.

For normative social influence group size does matter. The larger the group, the stronger the pressure to conform.

For informational social influence size does not matter. Once the first member of the group has given a response it adds very little information for 2, 3 or more persons to give the same response.



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Group Size

Even with normative social influence Asch’s (1955) research shows that conformity does not increase much after group size reaches 4 or 5 other people (see Fig. 8.5).



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Group Importance

Another tenet of social impact theory is that the strength of the group—defined as how important the group is to us—makes a difference; it increases normative pressures.

Normative pressures are much stronger when they come from people whose friendship, love, or respect we cherish (high strength).



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Group Unanimity

Normative social influence is most powerful when everyone in the group is in agreement.

A variation of Asch’s (1955) experiment demonstrated the importance of group unanimity; even the presence of one ally greatly helped participants to resist normative pressures.



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Personality

Two personality variables, self-esteem and gender, have been investigated in relation to normative conformity.

There is some evidence that people with low self-esteem are more likely to conform, and that women are more likely to conform than men. However, the magnitude of the relationship is small and controversial.



When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence? Collectivist Culture

A meta analysis of 133 Asch line judgment studies conducted in 17 countries revealed a significant effect of cultural values on normative social influence.

Participants in collectivist cultures showed higher rates of conformity than did participants in individualist cultures (including Canada).



Resisting Normative Social Influence

It is possible to resist normative social pressures:

The first step in resisting normative social influence is to become aware that we are doing it.

The second is to take action. And understand why do we fail to take action in many cases.

We are reluctant to take action because of possible ridicule, embarrassment, or rejection meted out by group members__who first try to bring us back into the fold.



Resisting Normative Social Influence

The third step is to realize that if we conform to group norms most of the time, we earn idiosyncracy credits that give us the right to deviate occasionally without serious consequences.



IV. Social Influence in Everyday Life


Social Influence in Everyday LifeSocial Influence in Everyday Life

Social influence operates on many levels in our daily lives.

-eg, the clothes we wear, for men, wide ties in the 1970s, narrow ties in the 1980s, zoot suits in the 1940s



Social Influence & Women’s Body Image

A more sinister form of social influence involves people’s attempts to conform to cultural definitions of an attractive body.

-eg, many world societies consider plumpness in females attractive, while

Western culture values thinness in the female form (see Anderson et al, 1992 reliable food supply study; Figure 8.6).




Women learn what kind of body is considered attractive at any given time in their culture through informational social influence, eg, from family, friends, media

Thin is in, and the ‘ideals’ are getting thinner; thus women are getting the message that they are not conforming to cultural standards of beauty.

Research on body image shows that women perceive themselves as overweight and as heavier than they actually are.




Normative social influence explains women’s attempts to create the ideal body through dieting, and through eating disorders, ie, anorexia nervosa and bulimia.



Social Influence & Men’s Body Image

There is very little research investigating men’s body image. What is available suggests that men, like women are subject to informational and normative social influences.

The ideal body for males, for example, is much more muscular now than it was in the past (see GI Joe example).



Social Influence & Men’s Body Image

In one study, men’s perception of the ‘ideal’ male body was much more muscular than their own, and this was seen as the most attractive to women (Pope et al, 2000).

In fact, when women were asked, they chose a very normal, typical-looking male body as their ideal.



V. Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the Many


Minority Influence: When the Few Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the ManyInfluence the Many

Some people do resist conformity influence, and stand as a minority against the majority influencing their beliefs and behaviour.

Moscovici (1994) argues that the minority can affect change in the majority, and the key to this is consistency over time and among members of the minority.


Minority Influence: When the Few Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the ManyInfluence the Many

How does the minority influence operate?

A recent meta-analysis by Wendy Wood et al (1994) reveals that although majorities often cause public compliance through normative social influence, minorities cause private acceptance through informational social influence.

Minorities introduce new and unexpected information to the group and cause the group to examine the issues more carefully and revaluate their position.



VI. Compliance: Requests to Change Your Behaviour


ComplianceCompliance

The two main reasons why people conform are,

1) informational social influence, and

2) normative social influence.

These conformity pressures can be applied to two kinds of everyday behaviour:

1)compliance and

2)obedience.

Compliance is a change in behaviour due to a direct request from another person.



The Door-in-the-Face Technique

One effective compliance technique is the door-in-the-face technique.

The door-in-the-face technique gets people to comply with a request by presenting them first with a large request (eg, $500), which they are expected to refuse, and then with a smaller, more reasonable request ($5.00), with which they are expected to comply.

Several studies show that this technique works very well (Figure 8.7).



The Door-in-the-Face TechniqueThe reason this works, it is suggested is because of the norm of reciprocity.

Reciprocity norm is a social norm stating that receiving anything positive from another person requires you to reciprocate (or behave similarly) in response.

One disadvantage of the door-in-the-face technique is that it is likely to be short-lived.

-ie, once people have agreed to the smaller request they have met their obligation by meeting the requester halfway; therefore they will not be sympathetic to subsequent requests.



The Foot-in-the Door Technique

An another effective compliance technique is the foot-in-the-door technique.

Foot-in-the-door is a technique to get people to comply with a request, whereby people are presented first with a small request, to which they are expected to acquiesce, followed by a larger request, to which it is hoped they will also acquiesce.



The Foot-in-the Door Technique

This technique also works well, but for a different reason than reciprocity (Figure 8.7).

Instead of invoking the reciprocity norm, it triggers a change in self-perception.

-ie, By agreeing to the small request, people come to view themselves as the kind of person who helps others. Once this self-image is in place, it makes people more likely to agree to the second, larger request as a means of maintaining their self-image



Lowballing

Another technique for inducing compliance is lowballing.

Lowballing is an unscrupulous strategy whereby a sales person induces a customer to agree to purchase a product at a very low cost (eg, $20,000) then subsequently raises the price ($22,500); ‘Sorry I made a mistake’); frequently the customer will still make the purchase at the inflated price.



Lowballing

There are at least three reasons why snowballing works:

1)Initial agreement to buy creates the illusion of irrevocability;

2) Initial agreement creates excitement, which if thwarted would produce disappointment;

3)The final price is only slightly higher than the price at other outlets, therefore, ‘I might as well buy it since I’m here.’



VII. Obedience to Authority


Obedience to AuthorityObedience to Authority

A frightening and too often tragic form of conformity is obedience (e.g., see Adolf Eichmann, Lt. William Calley).

Obedience is conformity in response to the commands of an authority figure.



Under strong social pressure, individuals will conform to the group, even when this means doing something immoral.

Atrocities such as the Holocaust, or the My Lai incident were committed not by sadists, or psychopaths who enjoyed the mass murder of innocent people, but by ordinary people bowing to extraordinary complex social pressures (Arendt,1965).



Can an experimenter influence ordinary people to commit immoral acts, such as inflicting severe pain on an innocent bystander?

Yes, according to Milgram’s studies.

• 62.5% of participants delivered the 450v shock, the maximum amount.

• 80% continued giving the shocks, even after the learner, who earlier had mentioned he had a heart problem, screamed, “Let me out of here! My heart’s bothering me.” (see Fig. 8.8).



Why did so many research participants (of widely different ages and social backgrounds) conform to the wishes of the experimenter, to the point where they were inflicting great pain (at least they thought so) on another human being?

Consider the role of informational and normative social influence.



The Role of Normative Influence

It is clear that normative pressures made it difficult for people to refuse to continue with the study. Participants were afraid that the experimenter would be disappointed, hurt, or even angry if they quit.

Normative pressures are also evident in another variation of this study Milgram conducted.

Significantly less compliance was demonstrated when two other “teachers” refused to continue (see Fig. 8.9).



The Role of Informational Influence

Informational influence was also an important factor in gaining compliance.

We noted that informational pressure is particularly likely to come to bear when the situation is ambiguous, when it is a crisis, and when other people in the situation have some expertise.

All of these conditions existed in the Milgram experiment thereby increasing the informational pressures.



Informational Influence

Another variation of the Milgram study in which the experimenter leaves the room and another ‘teacher’ gives the orders to continue supports the notion of informational influence.

There was much less compliance in this condition than in the original standard version (see Fig. 8.9).



Other Causes of Obedience: Conforming to the Wrong Norm

Another potential causal factor is getting caught in a web of conflicting norms.

The first norm, ‘Obey legitimate authority,’ is in conflict with

the second norm, ‘Do not inflict needless harm on a fellow human being,’ and

it becomes difficult to switch from the first to the second in a fast-paced situation such as Milgram’s


Obedience to AuthorityObedience to AuthorityOther Causes of Obedience: Self-Justification

It was difficult for participants to abandon the obey authority norm because:

• The experiment was fast-paced, preventing the participants from reflecting on what they were doing.

• The shocks were increased in very small increments, making it easier for participants to justify each level and move on to the next.


Obedience to AuthorityObedience to AuthorityOther Causes of Obedience: Self-Justification

This incremental technique works very well.

It was used with great success by the Greek military dictatorship of the 1960s to train torturers.

End

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 8 Conformity: Influencing Behaviour.

Documents