Chapter 7: Conformity, Compliance and Obedience

CONFORMITY
- A social influence process that involves modifying behavior in response to real or imagined
pressure from others rather than in response to a direct request or order from another.
- Our behavior is influenced by other people. Most of the time, our personal views change when we
are in a social context.
- It is not just acting as other people act; it is also being affected by how they act. It is acting or
thinking differently from the way you would act and think if you were alone.

TWO KINDS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE: INFORMATIONAL AND NORMATIVE

a) INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
- Social influence that results from a person responding to information provided by others.
- Generally, we are subject to informational social influence because we want to be accurate in our
judgments. We use other people’s opinions as a source of information by which to test the validity
of our own judgments. We conform because we perceive that others have correct information
(Campbell & Fairey, 1989). Shifts in opinion based on informational social influence result from the
sharing of arguments and factual information (Kaplan & Miller, 1987). Essentially, opinion and
behavior change come about via the kind of persuasion processes.

b) NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

- Social influence in which a person changes behavior in response to pressure to conform to a norm.
 NORM - An unwritten social rule existing either on a wide cultural level or on a smaller,
situation-specific level that suggests what is appropriate behavior in a situation.
- In a normative social influence situation, at least two factors are relevant. First, the input we obtain
from others serves as a clue to the nature of the norm in effect at any given time (Kaplan & Miller,
1987).
- Second, the size and unanimity of the majority convey information about the strength of the norm
in effect.
- Although both informational and normative social influence can exert powerful control over our
behavior, their effects are different. The changes caused by informational social influence tend to
be stronger and more enduring than those caused by normative social influence (Burnstein &
Sentis, 1981). This is because changes caused by new information, or a new interpretation of
existing information may be persuasive and convincing.
- For normative social influence to occur, we need not be convinced that our opinion is incorrect. We
respond to our perception of what we believe others want us to do. Consequently, a change in
opinion, attitude, or behavior brought about by normative pressure is often fragile. Once normative
pressure eases up, we are likely to go back to our previous opinions.

CLASSIC STUDIES IN CONFORMITY

SHERIF'S STUDIES OF NORM FORMATION
- Muzafer Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment Method: Sherif used a lab experiment to study
conformity. He used the autokinetic effect this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a
screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).
- Sherif’s experiment showed that group norms are established through interaction of individuals,
with a leveling-off of extreme opinions. The result is a consensus agreement that tends to be a
compromise, even if it is wrong.
THE ASCH PARADIGM
- The Asch paradigm, in psychology, is a series of experiments on conformity run by Solomon
Asch in the 1950s. These experiments tested the way individuals responded to groupthink, and to
what extent social pressure could cause a person to conform.
- Asch’s experimental paradigm placed the participants’ own perceptions into conflict with the
opinions of a unanimous majority advocating a clearly incorrect judgment.
PATHS TO CONFORMITY AND INDEPENDENCE

- Aschʼs interviews tell us that there are many paths to conformity or independence. Some
participants remain independent because they trust their own senses, whereas others remain
independent because they feel a great need to do so. These latter participants appear to remain
independent because of psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966).

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE - occurs when individuals feel that their freedom of choice or action is
threatened because other people are forcing them to do or say things.
- To reestablish independence, they reject the majority’s pressure and go their own way. Even when
individuals choose to remain independent, however, they still feel the pressure the incorrect
majority exerts. Resisting the pressure of the majority is not easy. Independent participants can
withstand that pressure and stick with their own perceptions.

HOW DOES SOCIAL INFLUENCE BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY?

- What is it about social influence situations that causes conformity? When your opinion is different
from that of a unanimous majority, you are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, your senses
(or belief system) suggest one thing; on the other, the social situation (the majority) suggests
something quite different. Placed in such a situation you experience conflict, which is
psychologically uncomfortable (Moscovici, 1985). When you grapple with this conflict, your
tendency is to pay attention to the views of the majority. Once the majority influence is removed,
however, attention is focused back on the stimulus (e.g., the judgment of lines in the Asch studies).
Once majority influence is removed, you will return to your previous judgments (Moscovici, 1985).
- Researchers speculated that high social pressure would lead to high levels of arousal. This arousal
is due to the competing tendencies to pay attention both to the stimulus and to the source of social
influence, other people. The net result is that a person will default to his or her dominant way of
behaving. Those who have a strong tendency to conform may resolve the conflict by adopting the
 view of the majority. Others less prone to the effects of social influence may increase their attention
to the stimulus as a way to resolve the conflict. By focusing on the stimulus, they take their minds
off the social pressure.
- Another way to approach this question is to examine the effects of consensus, or agreement with
others, on our perceptions and behavior. Attitudes and behavior that are in line with those of others
are a powerful source of social reinforcement. We like it when our attitudes and behaviors are
verified. The perception that our beliefs have social support is related to higher levels of self-
esteem (Goodwin, Costa, & Adonu, 2004). Additionally, we are quicker to express an attitude that
has consensual support than one that flies in the face of the majority. This is known as the minority
slowness effect (Bassili, 2003). The larger the majority, the faster we will be willing to express a
view that is in line with that majority (Bassili, 2003). It matters little whether the attitudes are
important to us (e.g., political attitudes) or less important (e.g., foods we like); we are slower to
express attitudes that deviate from the majority than those that do not (Bassili, 2003).

FACTORS THAT AFFECT CONFORMITY

NATURE OF THE TASK
- The first variable that can affect the amount of conformity observed relates to the task itself. One
variable affecting conformity rates is the ambiguity of the task. As the task facing the individual
becomes more ambiguous (i.e., less obvious), the amount of conformity increases (Crutchfield,
1955).
THE SIZE OF THE MAJORITY
- The size of the majority also affects conformity rates. As the size of the majority increases, so does
conformity, up to a point (Asch, 1951, 1956; Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz, 1969).

HAVING A TRUE PARTNER

TRUE PARTNER EFFECT
- The phenomenon whereby an individual’s tendency to conform with a majority position is reduced
if there is one other person who supports the nonconforming individual’s position.

GENDER AND CONFORMITY

- An analysis of the research shows that there are conditions under which women are more likely to
conform than men and others under which men are more likely to conform than women (Eagly &
Chrvala, 1986). For example, women are more likely to conform than men in group pressure
situations—that is, under conditions of normative social influence—than in persuasion situations,
where informational social influence is being applied (Eagly, 1978; Eagly & Carli, 1981).
- Two explanations have been proposed for gender differences in conformity (Eagly, 1987). First,
gender may serve as a status variable in newly formed groups. Traditionally, the female gender
role is seen as weaker than the male role. In everyday life, males are more likely to hold positions
of high status and power than women. Men are more likely to be in the position of “influencer” and
women in the position of “influencee.” The lower status of the female role may contribute to a
greater predisposition to conform on the part of women, especially in group pressure situations.
Second, women tend to be more sensitive than men to conformity pressures when their behavior is
under surveillance—that is, when they have to state their opinions publicly (Eagly, Wood, &
Fishbaugh, 1981). When women must make their opinions public, they are more likely than men to
conform.
MINORITY INFLUENCE
- Researchers theorized that consistency of behavior is a strong determinant of the social influence
a minority can exert on a majority (Moscovici et al., 1969). An individual in a minority who
expresses a deviant opinion consistently may be seen as having a high degree of confidence in his
or her judgments.
- The consistent minority caused the majority to call into question the validity of their own judgments.

TWO STYLES OF CONSISTENCY HAVE BEEN DISTINGUISHED: RIGID AND NEGOTIATING

a) IN THE RIGID STYLE, the minority advocates a position that is counter to the norm adopted by the
majority but is unwilling to show flexibility. IN THE NEGOTIATING STYLE, the minority, although
remaining consistent, shows a willingness to be flexible. Each of these styles contributes to the
minority’s image in the eyes of the majority.
b) The rigid minority is perceived in a less positive way than a negotiating minority, perhaps leading to
perceptions that the rigid minority’s goal is to block the majority. Conversely, the negotiating
minority may be perceived as having compromise as its goal.

MAJORITY AND MINORITY INFLUENCE: TWO PROCESSES OR ONE?

- Social influence, as we have seen, operates in two directions: from majority to minority and from
minority to majority. The discovery of minority influence raised an issue concerning the underlying
social psychological processes controlling majority and minority influence. Do two different
processes control majority and minority influence, or is there a single process controlling both?

THE TWO-PROCESS MODEL

- Judgments expressed by a minority may be more likely to make people think about the arguments
raised (Moscovici, 1980). This suggests that two different processes operate: majority influence,
which occurs almost exclusively on a public level, and minority influence, which seems to operate
on a private level. Majority influence, according to the two-process approach, operates through the
application of pressure. People agree with a majority because of public pressure, but often they
really don’t accept the majority’s view on a private level. The fact that the majority exerts great
psychological pressure is reflected in the finding that people feel very anxious when they find
themselves in disagreement with the majority (Asch, 1956; Nemeth, 1986). However, as soon as
majority pressure is removed, people return to their original beliefs.

A SINGLE-PROCESS MODEL: SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY
- A theory stating that social influence is a function of the combination of the strength, immediacy,
and number of influence sources.

COMPLIANCE: RESPONDING TO A DIRECT REQUEST

COMPLIANCE
- Social influence process that involves modifying behavior after accepting a direct request.
- occurs when you modify your behavior in response to a direct request from another person. In
compliance situations, the person making the request has no power to force you to do as he or she
asks.
TWO COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES: THE FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE AND THE DOOR-IN-THE
FACE TECHNIQUE
a) FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE (FITD) A social influence process in which a small request is
made before a larger request, resulting in more compliance to the larger request than if the larger
request were made alone.

- When people agree to a small request before a larger one is made, they are more likely to agree to
the larger request than if the larger request were made alone.
LIMITS OF THE FITD TECHNIQUE
- One important limitation of the FITD technique is that the requests being made must be socially
acceptable (Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984). People do not comply with requests they find
objectionable. Another limitation to the FITD technique is the cost of the behavior called for. When
a high-cost behavior is called for (e.g., donating blood), the FITD technique does not work very well
(Cialdini & Ascani, 1976; Foss & Dempsey, 1979).
b) DOOR-IN-THE-FACE TECHNIQUE (DITF)
- A social influence process in which a large request is made before a smaller request, resulting in
more compliance to the smaller request than if the smaller request were made alone.
- The social psychological mechanism operating here is the norm of reciprocity.

NORM OF RECIPROCITY
- A social norm stating that you should help those who help you and should not injure those who
help you.
- Although there is support for the role of reciprocity in the DITF effect, some researchers have
questioned its validity and have suggested alternative explanations for these situations. One such
alternative is

THE PERCEPTUAL CONTRAST HYPOTHESIS.

- This hypothesis focuses on the contrast in size between the first and second requests. Applied to
the DITF effect, the perceptual contrast hypothesis suggests that individuals agree to the second
(small) request because it appears more reasonable in the light of the first (large) request. The
individual may perceive that the second request is less costly than the first
OBEDIENCE
- A social influence process involving modification of behavior in response to a command from an
authority figure.

2 TYPES OF OBEDIENCE
a) CONSTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE
- Fosters the operation and wellbeing of society.
b) DESTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE
- occurs when a person obeys an authority figure and behaves in ways that are counter to accepted
standards of moral behavior, ways that conflict with the demands of conscience.
- Certainly, no group, no society, could exist very long if it couldn’t make its members obey laws,
rules, and customs. Generally, obedience is not a bad thing. But when the rules and norms people
are made to obey are negative, obedience is one of the blights of society.

DESTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE AND THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EVIL

- There is a tendency to attribute acts of destructive obedience to some abnormal internal
characteristics of those who perpetrate such acts. Often, we refer to as “evil.” The term evil has
been widely used historically and in contemporary culture.

WHAT DOES THE TERM EVIL ACTUALLY ENTAIL?

- Social psychologists favor a situational definition of evil focusing on overt behavior. For example,
Zimbardo (2004) defines evil as “intentionally behaving, or causing others to act, in ways that
demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy or kill innocent people” (p. 22). Under this definition, a wide
range of behaviors including terrorism, genocide, and even corporate misdeeds could be
considered evil (Zimbardo, 2004).
- How does a social psychological definition of evil relate to obedience? Obedience to a command
from an authority figure can produce evil outcomes.
- Obedience has the power to transform ordinary people into those who are willing to do things they
would not ordinarily do (Zimbardo, 2004).

WHAT ARE THE ROOTS THAT UNDERLIE EVIL?

- This question of course can be addressed from a number of perspectives, including philosophical
and religious. However, we will limit ourselves to a social psychological answer to the question.
Baumeister and Vohs (2004) identify four roots of evil deeds. These are:
1) Instrumentality: Using violence to achieve a goal or solve a conflict.
2) Threatened egotism: Violence as a response to impugned honor or wounded pride.
3) Idealism: Evil deeds performed to achieve some higher good.
4) Sadism: Enjoying harming others (more likely to be reported by victims than perpetrators).
 According to Baumeister and Vohs, the four roots form a causal chain that moves one toward
perpetrating evil deeds. A final link between the four roots and the actual evil behavior, however, is
a loss of self-control (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). When one loses normal constraints against
carrying out evil deeds (e.g., mass violence), evil is more likely to be the result. When mechanisms
of self-control are maintained, evil deeds are less likely.
Staub (1989) suggests three other roots of evil. These are:
a) difficult life conditions- Staub points out that evil deeds are often perpetrated under difficult life
conditions such as economic depression and social disorganization.
 b) cultural and personal preconditions Cultural and personal factors are rooted in individual self-
concept and traditional in-group/out-group separations in a culture. When one’s self-esteem is
threatened, that individual will move toward regaining a sense of control and power. This can be
accomplished by establishing a sense of superiority of one’s in-group over out-groups.
c) Social-political organization- certain social-political organization structures are more likely to give
rise to evil deeds than others. Totalitarian, authoritarian systems that institutionalize prejudice and
discrimination are most likely to lead to evil deeds.

THE BANALITY OF EVIL: EICHMANNʼS FALLACY

EICHMANN’S FALLACY
- The belief that evil deeds are done only by evil people.
- It was called Fallacy because Arendt’s analysis about Eichmann suggested that. Sometimes
individuals who perpetrate evil deeds are quite ordinary, as Eichmann apparently was.
 As you might expect, not everyone subscribes to the general idea of the banality of evil. For
example, Calder (2003) argues that a person can have an “evil character” and still have an
ordinary appearance and demeanor.

For Calder (2003) there are two types of evil:

a) Moral Monster- carry out evil deeds on their own, without direction from anyone else (autonomous
evil).
b) Moral Idiots- carry out evil at the behest of others (nonautonomous evil).

DISOBEDIENCE
BREAKING WITH AUTHORITY
AGENTIC STATE
- in the agentic state, an individual becomes focused on the source of authority, tuning in to the
instructions issued.
ROLE STRAIN
- The discomfort one feels in an obedience situation that causes a person to question the legitimacy
of the authority figure and weakens the agentic state.
- Milgram (1974) suggested that one factor contributing to the maintenance of obedience was that
the individual in the obedience situation entered into an agentic state, which involves a person’s
giving up his or her normal moral and ethical standards in favor of those of the authority figure. In
short, the individual becomes an agent or instrument of the authority figure. Milgram suggested
further that in this agentic state, a person could experience role strain (apprehension about the
obedience behavior) that could weaken the agentic state. In an obedient situation, the limits of the
role we play are defined for us by the authority source. As long as we are comfortable with, or at
least can tolerate, that role, obedience continues. However, if we begin to seriously question the
legitimacy of that role, we begin to experience what Milgram called role strain.

REASSESSING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE AUTHORITY

- In their book Crimes of Obedience, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) pointed out that authority is more
often challenged when the individual considers the authority source illegitimate. When an authority
source loses credibility, disobedience becomes possible.

TWO KINDS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS PRECEDE DISOBEDIENCE

a) COGNITIVE FACTORS
- the way we think about obedience. In order to disobey, the individual involved in an obedience
situation must be aware of alternatives to obedience.
b) MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS
- An individual in an obedience situation must be willing to buck the existing social order (whether in
the real world or in the laboratory) and accept the consequences.
- According to Kelman and Hamilton (1989), these two psychological factors interact with material
resources to produce disobedience. In response, the authority source undoubtedly will apply
pressure to restore obedience. Those who have the funds or other material resources will be able
to withstand that pressure best. Thus, successful disobedience requires a certain level of
resources. As long as individuals perceive that the authority figure has the greater resources
(monetary and military), disobedience is unlikely to occur.

 Not all acts of disobedience are rebellious in nature. In some instances, a group of citizens may
advocate and engage in the breaking of laws they see as unjust. This is commonly known as civil
disobedience. Civil disobedience can take several forms, including protests, work stoppages,
boycotts, disobeying laws, and violent acts inflicting physical, economic, or property damage. Civil
disobedience may be used in response to restrictions of one’s basic civil rights or may be
ideologically driven when a law is perceived to be unacceptable to one’s best interests (Rattner,
Yagil, & Pedahzur, 2001).