Chapter 7 Conformity

Figure 7.1: Continuum of Social Influence

Outline

 Automatic social influence

 Conformity 從眾: Tendency to change perceptions, opinions,

or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms.

 Compliance 順從: Changes in behavior that are elicited by

direct requests.
 Obedience 服從: Behavior change produced by the

commands of authority
Outline

 Automatic social influence

 Conformity

 Compliance

 Obedience
Automatic social influence

 Milgram et al. (1969)

 80% of passersby stopped and gazed up when they saw the
confederates
Do we really imitate one another
automatically ?
Automatic social influence
 Chartrand & Bargh (1999)

 Participants
work on a task with a partner (confederate)
 Confederate exhibited specific habits (rubbing face OR shaking foot)

 Their interaction was recorded with a hidden camera

Figure 7.2: The Chameleon Effect
What are the reasons behind the
noncounscious form of imitation ?
 Social mimicry

 Chartrand & Bargh (1999)

 Mimicry serves an important social function

 Being “in sync” in their pace, posture, mannerisms,

facial expressions, tone of voice…….enables people
to interact more smoothly with one another
 Social mimicry

 Chartrand & Bargh (1999)

 Procedure:

Confederate was instructed to match the mannerisms

of some participants but not others

 Results:

Participants who had been mimicked liked the

confederate more
Outline

 Automatic social influence

 Conformity

 Compliance

 Obedience
Conformity
 Conformity: The tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or
behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms.
Why do people conform?
The Early Classics
 Sherif’s study (1936)
autokinetic effect

15 feet (4.5m)

2s
Figure 7.3: A Classic Case of Suggestibility
The Early Classics
 Sherif:
 Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each
other for guidance.

 Asch:
 Foundself in awkward position
 Obvious that group was wrong
The Early Classics
 Asch’s study (1951)
 Line Judgment Task
The Early Classics
 Asch’s study (1951)
 Results:
◼ Participants
went along with the clearly incorrect majority
37% of the time.
◼ However,
◼ 25% of the participants NEVER conformed.
◼ Still, 50% conformed for at least half of the critical
presentations.
◼ The rest conformed on an occasional basis.
The Early Classics
 Sherif:
 Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each
other for guidance.

 Asch:
 Foundself in awkward position
 Obvious that group was wrong
Why do people conform ?
Why do people conform ?

 Informational Influence: Influence that produce

conformity when a person believes others are
correct in their judgments.

 Normative Influence: : Influence that produce

conformity when a person fears the
consequences of appearing deviant.
Do the two sources of influence
produce different types of
conformity ?
Types of Conformity

 Private Conformity: Changes in both overt

behavior and beliefs.

 Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt

behavior only.
Table 7.1: Two Types of Conformity
Examples
 When memory of an eyewitness is influenced by the report of a
co-witness (Gabbert et al, 2003)

 When people rate the humorousness of bland cartoons that

confederates rated as funny (Kosloff et al., 2017)

 When they click the “like” button on Facebook after seeing that
others had done the same (Egebark & Ekstrom, 2018)
What factors make us more or less
likely to conform?
Majority & Minority Influence
 Majority Influence
 Group size
 A focus on Norms

 An ally in dissent

 Minority Influence
 The power of style

 Idiosyncrasy credits
Majority Influence: Group Size
 Asch (1956)
 Varied the size of groups (1,2,3,4,8,15 confederates)
 Results: Conformity increases with group size -- but only
up to a point .
Majority Influence: Awareness of Norms

 Conform only when know about and focus on social

norms.

 Cialdini et al. (1991)

Procedure
◼ In a parking garage (norm: clean vs. dirty)
◼ Confederate brought the norm to participant’s attention (threw
paper to the ground vs. just passed by )
◼ Dep. V: Participants’ behaviors to the handbill tucked under the
windshield wiper
Majority Influence: Having an Ally in Dissent

 When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity

dropped by almost 80%.

 Why does having an ally reduce majority influence

on our behavior?
 Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s
convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minority.
 ANY DISSENT can reduce the normative pressures to
conform.
Table 7.2: On Being a Lone Dissenter: Voting
Patterns of U.S. Supreme Court
Majority & Minority Influence
 Majority Influence
 Group size
 A focus on Norms

 An ally in dissent

 Minority Influence
 The power of style

 Idiosyncrasy credits
Minority Influence: The Power of Style

 Minority Influence: The process by which dissenters

produce change within a group
Minority Influence: The Power of Style
 Moscovici’s Theory: Nonconformists derive
power from the style of their behavior.
 “Consistent dissent” approach:
◼ Must be forceful, persistent, and unwavering
◼ Must also appear flexible and open-minded
Minority Influence: Idiosyncrasy credits

 Hollander’s Theory: Minorities influence by first

accumulating idiosyncrasy credits.
 “First conform, then dissent” strategy
 Idiosyncrasy credits: Interpersonal “credits” that a
person earns by following group norms
Does minority influence work just
like the process of majority
influence ?
Minority Influence: Processes and Outcomes

 Because of their power and control, majorities elicit

public conformity through normative pressures.

 Because seen as seriously committed to their views,

minorities produce private conformity, or conversion.
Outline

 Automatic social influence

 Conformity

 Compliance

 Obedience
Compliance

 Compliance: Changes in behavior that are elicited by

DIRECT REQUESTS.
How do people get others to
comply with self-serving requests ?
Compliance

 Compliance: Changes in behavior that are elicited by

DIRECT REQUESTS.

 (Mindlessness and compliance)

 The norm of reciprocity
 Setting Traps: Sequential request strategies
 Assertiveness: When people say no
 Norm of Reciprocity

 The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that

we treat others as they have treated us.

 This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay for acts

of kindness, even when unsolicited.

◼ Regan (1971)
 Norm of Reciprocity

 Regan (1971)
Procedures
 Individuals join an experiment with a confederate (likable vs. unlikable)

 The confederate left during a break and returned

◼ with two bottles of Coca-Cola
◼ with empty hand
◼ with empty hand, but participants were treated to a Coca-Cola by
the experimenter
 The confederate then told participants that he was selling raffle tickets
 Norm of Reciprocity

 Regan (1971)

Procedures

Results
 Participants bought more raffle tickets when the confederate had
brought them a soft drink than had not, even when the confederate was
not a likable character
Is there a time limit to the feelings
of social obligation ?
 Norm of Reciprocity
 Feeling of indebtedness is relatively short-lived.

 Burger et al. (1997)

◼ Procedure:
Regan’s soft drink favor was given and had the
confederate try to “cash in” with a request either
immediately or one week later

◼ Results:
Compliance levels increased in the immediate
condition but not after a full week had passed
Are people more likely to comply
when facing more than one
request?
Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies

 Set the trap → Captures the prey

Setting Traps: Sequential Request Strategies

 Four sequential request strategies :

 Foot-in-the-Door Technique
 Low-Balling

 Door-in-the-Face Technique
 That’s Not All, Folks!
 Foot-in-the-Door Technique

 A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer

begins with a very small request; secures agreement; then
makes a separate larger request.
 Foot-in-the-Door Technique

 Freedman & Fraser (1966)

◼ Experimenter telephoned female homemakers “if they would be

willing to answer some questions about household product” ?

◼3 days later, experimenter asked the housemaker if they would

allow a handful of men into their homes to take an inventory of
their household products
 Lowballing
 A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer
secures agreement with a request and then increases the
size of that request by revealing hidden costs.
 Lowballing

 Cialdini et al. (1978)

◼ Experimenters phoned students and asked if they would be

willing to participate in a study for extra credit

◼ Participants
were told the session would begin at 7a.m.
before OR after they made decision
 Door-in-the-Face Technique

 A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer

begins with a very large request that will be rejected; then
follows that up with a more moderate request.
 Door-in-the-Face Technique

 Cialdini et al. (1975)

◼ Largerequest: College students were stopped on campus and

asked “if they would volunteer to work without pay at a
counseling center 2 hrs/week for the next two years?”

◼ Modest request: Students were then asked “if they would be

willing to take a group of delinquents on a 2-hr trip to the zoo?”
 That’s Not All, Folks!

 A two-step compliance technique in which an influencer

begins with an inflated request; then decreases its apparent
size by offering a discount or bonus.
 That’s Not All, Folks!

 Burger (1986)

◼ Set up a booth at a campus selling cupcake

◼ Told customers
◼ The cupcake cost 75 cents
◼ Told the cupcake cost 1dollar but then (before respond) the
price was reduced to 75 cents
Table 7.3: Sequential Request Strategies
How can we resist the pressure of
compliance requests ?
 Assertiveness: When People Say No

 To be able to resist the trap of compliance techniques, one

must:
 Bevigilant
 Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity

 Compliance techniques work smoothly only if they are

hidden from view.
Outline

 Automatic social influence

 Conformity

 Compliance

 Obedience
 Milgram’s Research:
Forces of Destructive Obedience
Table 7.4: The Learner's Protests in the Milgram Experiment

.
The Prods Used in Milgram’s Experiment

 “Please continue (or please go on).”

 “The experiment requires that you continue.”

 “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”

 “You have no other choice; you must go on.”

Figure 7.8: Factors That Influence Obedience
Do the results showed that we are
all Nazis?
Factors That Influence Obedience

 An individual’s character can make a difference.

 AuthoritarianPersonality: Submissive toward figures of

authority but aggressive toward subordinates.
Factors That Influence Obedience
 Physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the
authority figure

 The victim’s proximity

 Defiance: When People Rebel

 Socialinfluence can also breed rebellion and defiance.
 Having allies gives individuals the courage to disobey.
Factors That Influence Obedience

 The experimental procedure

 Participants were led to feel relieved of personal

responsibility for the victim’s welfare.

 Gradual escalation was used.

 Obedience in the 21 st Century
 Burger (2009): A partial replication of Milgram’s study
What are the reasons Milgram’s
study was criticized as unethical?
 Five reasons Milgram’s study
was criticized as unethical
 Deception: Participants were told that it was a study on
memory; participants were told that the electric shocks were
real.
 Informed consent: Participants were not informed as the true
nature of the experiment
 Right to withdraw: Participants were not informed that they
could discontinue the experiment any time
 Psychological distress: Many participants experience high level
of distress
 Inflicted insight: Some of them had learned that they do things
they had not agreed before
 Social Impact Theory
 Latane (1981):
Social influence depends on three factors:

 The STRENGTH of the source

◼ Status, ability, or relationship to a target
 The IMMEDIACY of the source
◼ Proximity in time and space to the target
 The NUMBER of sources
◼ At least up to a point
Figure 7.10: Social Impact: Source Factors and
Target Factors