Conformity

1
Conformity
2
Lecture contents

• Classic studies in conformity
• Sherifs (1936) autokinetic study of norm
  formation.
• Aschs (1951) line-judgement study of majority
  influence.
• Milgrams (1963) electric shock obedience to
  authority study.
• Influencial distinctions
• Moderators of conformity.

3
Conformity is...

• The tendency to change our perceptions,
  opinions, or behaviours in ways that are
  consistent with group norms
• Brehm et al. (2002, p. 222)

4
Whats the opposite?

• Independence?
• Anti-conformity?
• Conformity to a minority?

5
Sherif (1936) The establishment of group norms
6
Asch (1951) Majority influence
7
An unconventional take on forms of influence

• Informational influence
• Stemming from desire to be objectively correct
  when uncertain.
• Sherif (1936) as classic example?
• Normative influence
• Stemming from desire to be socially correct
  when uncertain.
• Asch (1951) as classic example conformity when
  certain?
• In both cases, conformity results from (i)
  uncertainty and (ii) a preference not to be seen
  to be wrong.
• Uncertainty in each case because of lack of prior
  knowledge or because of absent, ambiguous, or
  conflicting indicators of correctness.

8
Baron et al. (1996) Conformity (or not) to an
incorrect majority opinion as a function of
caring and task- difficulty
9
Moderators of majority influence

• 1. Group size.
• Diminishing returns in Asch paradigm.
• Wilder (1977).
• 2. Norm awareness.
• Prentice Miller (1996).
• 3. Consensus level.
• Any disruption of consensus reduces conformity to
  a majority
• ...especially when a consensual minority forms.

10
Minority influence

• Moscovici et al. (1969).
• Two confederates and 4 naïve participants.
• Confederates call green to subset of blue
  slides.
• About 33 of participants conformed at least once
  to the calls of an an incorrect but unanimous
  minority. (Against about 67)
• About 8 overall conformity in such
  circumstances. (92 not)
• Lowered threshold for perception of green among
  experimental participants - genuine conversion.
• Moscovici Lage (1976)
• Compared unanimous and non-unanimous, minority
  and majority influence.
• Only unanimous minority influence lowered colour
  threshold.

11
Why are minorities influential?

• Moscovicis (1980) dual-process model.
• Majorities evoke only public conformity via
  normative influence.
• E.g., Conformity in Asch paradigm reduced if
  private responding.
• Cf. Moscovici Lage (1976).
• Minorities evoke conversion via informational
  influence.
• Minority influence if consistent, committed,
  competent, compelling.
• Social impact theory (Latané Wolf, 1981)
• All social influence is a function of the
  strength, immediacy, and number of influences.
• Effective minorities tend to be strong sources
  of influence (e.g., credible).
• Note that this model allows for conformity and
  conversion from either minorities or majorities.

12
(Small yes first) Sequential request strategies

• Work via commitment and consistency (self-image)
• 1. The foot in the door.
• Secure agreement on small request then present
  separate larger request, e.g., Freedman Fraser
  (1966).
• 2. The low-ball.
• Secure agreement on small request then alter the
  exchange rate in your favour, e.g., Cialdini et
  al. (1978).

13
(Big no first) Sequential request strategies

• Work via principles of reciprocity (Gouldner,
  1960) and contrast
• 3. The door in the face.
• Have large favour rejected then make separate
  smaller request, e.g., Cialdini et al. (1975).
• 4. Thats not all.
• Withdraw initial large favour then alter the
  exchange rate in their favour, e.g., Burger
  (1986).

14
Just following orders

• Cult suicides
• e.g., Jim Joness Peoples Temple 900 dead in
  1978.
• Nazi atrocities during World War II.
• Arendts banality of evil.
• See also Glovers (1999) Humanity.
• All of us
• Bickman (1974)
• Third Wave

15
Milgram (1963)

• Character flaw explanation for Nazi atrocities.
• Widespread failure to predict results.
• 65 of participants reluctantly but repeatedly
  applied 450v shocks to an protesting and then
  seemingly comatose partner with a heart
  condition.
• Widespread replication.

16
Milgram (1974)
17
Moderating factors in obedience

• 1. Participant authoritarianism.
• An individual difference (personality)
  characteristic.
• Is positively associated with obedience to
  authority.
• 2. Degree of authority.
• 3. Immediacy.
• 4. Accountability.
• 5. Social defiance.

18
Contributory factors

• Agentic state The loss of autonomy individuals
  experience when they become the agent of a higher
  authority.
• Information and guidance accepted passively from
  authority.
• Personal responsibility only as a conduit.
• Participants felt responsibility to the
  authority but no responsibility for the content
  of the actions that the authority prescribes
  (Milgram, 1974, pp. 145-146).
• Obedience is easy and relatively effortless.
• Disobedience is difficult and costly.
• Roles e.g., teacher and subordinate (cf.
  Zimbardos prison study)
• Incremental commitment cf. foot-in-the-door.