1 / 18

Conformity

Conformity. Lecture contents. Classic studies in ‘conformity’: Sherif’s (1936) ‘autokinetic’ study of norm formation. Asch’s (1951) ‘line-judgement’ study of majority influence. Milgram’s (1963) ‘electric shock’ obedience to authority study. Influencial distinctions

Samuel
Télécharger la présentation

Conformity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conformity

  2. Lecture contents • Classic studies in ‘conformity’: • Sherif’s (1936) ‘autokinetic’ study of norm formation. • Asch’s (1951) ‘line-judgement’ study of majority influence. • Milgram’s (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. What’s 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? • Moscovici’s (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. “That’s 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 Jones’s People’s Temple: 900 dead in 1978. • Nazi atrocities during World War II. • Arendt’s “banality of evil”. • See also Glover’s (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. Zimbardo’s prison study) • Incremental commitment: cf. foot-in-the-door.

More Related