Social Psychology Lecture 13

1. Social PsychologyLecture 13 Conformity and Social Influence Jane Clarbour Room: PS/B007 email: jc129

2. Overview • Looking at a series of experiments that studied the effects of social influence on both individuals and small groups • processes of social influence: • Majority influence (conformity & compliance) • Minority influence (innovation)

3. Objectives By the end of this lecture, you should be able to: • Define what is meant by the 'fundamental attribution error' • Describe the two major mechanisms through which groups influence their members • Discuss why conformity is thought to result from exposure to a majority influence • Discuss the characteristics a minority should have in order to exert influence over a majority • Report criticisms of the dual-process model and alternative explanations of minority influence

4. Social influence • What is meant by social influence? • the extent to which an individual’s opinions, attitudes and judgments are influenced by being exposed to the views of others (Van Avermaet, 2001)

5. Fundamental attributional error The attribution error refers to the effect of the situation over & above the effect of personality • Situational factors generally ignored • Termed the ‘fundamental attributional error’

6. Norm formation The development of group normsSHERIF (1936) • Experimental paradigm based on ‘perception of motion’ • ‘autokinetic effect’ paradigm • A stationary but flickering single light in dark room • optical illusion: appears to move – but doesn’t actually move

7. Sherif’s experimental design • Private viewing task • Private estimate of distance light moved over 100 trials (written down)- • Ss formed personal consensus • Group viewing task • Public judgement (state out loud how far moved) Ss formed a group consensus This effect influenced Ss later judgement when subsequently asked to perform task again on their own

8. Why people conform • Major mechanisms of how groups influence their members: • Informationalinfluence • Value of other’s opinions • Generally useful source of information • Adaptive advantage • Normative influence • Need to be accepted by others • Need to be approved of by others • Fear of being disliked

9. Social influence (1950’s):The AschConformity Experiments • Ss shown a standard line • This was then to be compared against 3 other lines which varied in length from the standard line by between ¼” and 13/4” A B C

10. The AschConformity Experiments… • Ss sits in groups varying from 7 – 9 people • All asked to state which line is same as standard line • Only 1 subject (rest are confederates) • Each confederate makes false judgment in turn (out loud) • Ss goes last in making judgment • Control group (no confederates) • Ss judgments made in private

11. Asch conformity experimentRESULTS: • Experimental group • Many Ss conformed to confederates false judgments on majority of trials • Most caved in on a few trials • Control group • errors only about 2%

12. Changes in size of stimuli/group • Asch increased the disparity in line length • Larger disparities: • 28% of experimental Ss still made errors • Only 2% in control • Asch decreased size of majority group • 1 confederate to 1 Ss • Abolished the group effect • Even though confederate still went first.

13. Increased sized of minority… • Introduced a partner • 1 confederate (immed.) prior to Ss gave correct response • Reduced majority effect to 13% of estimates • Wrong minority of 1 (reverse of original experiment) • I confederate gives wrong answer first but rest of group were Ss • No majority effect

14. Variations of stimulusCRUTCHFIELD (1955) Studies of attitude • “Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is proper for a society to suspend free speech when it feels threatened” • 19% agreed with statement in private • 58% agreed under pressure of group influence

15. Variations of stimulusCRUTCHFIELD (1955) • Statement presented to Army leaders: “I doubt whether I would make a good leader” • None agreed with statement in private • 37% agreed under group pressure BUT • When Ss were presented with judgements again in private most reverted to their pre-group answers • No permanent attitude change as result of experiment • So, more an effect of compliance than conformity

16. Critique of Asch experimentsPERRIN & SPENCER (1980) Generalisability of Asch’s experiments? • Failure to replicate ‘line’ experiments with British engineering, maths and chemistry students (6 confederates, 1 Ss) • Only 1 out of 396 trials did a Ss join the erroneous majority. Stresses cultural rather than personality factors in explaining conformity

17. Difference between Asch & Sherif studies • Sherif (moving light) • Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer • Reasonable to consider other’s views • Participants later adopted social norms • Conformity leads to internalization • Asch (parallel lines) • Participants knew there was a correct answer • Conformity does not lead to internalization Suggests important differences between compliance and conformity

18. Minority influence • Minority influence exemplified in TV play & film “Twelve Angry Men” • 12 jurors have to decide over the guilt or innocence of a young man charged with the murder of his father. • At outset of the play a single juror in the murder trial favours acquittal, other 11 jurors favour conviction • By end of play unanimously ‘not guilty’ • The minority (of 1) has influenced a majority jury

19. Minority influence and social change • Most instances of minority influence or innovation cannot be accounted for by the same mechanisms that explain majority influence(Moscovici, 1976) • Minorities are few in number • No normative control over the majority • More likely to be ridiculed by the majority than taken seriously • Perceived as ‘weirdo’s. • Seem to have access to the same informational and normative means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority

20. How do minorities influence others? • Minorities influence others through their own behavioural style: • Make their proposition clear at the outset • Stick to their original proposition • Withstand the majority influence

21. Behavioural Style • Key factor in minority influence is consistency of behavioural style • Consistent: • Across time & situation (diachronic consistency) • Across individuals (synchronic consistency) • Strength of conviction

22. Assumptions of of minority influence • Minority can create conflict • Creates doubt and uncertainty • Solution: cognitive change • Minority can exploit majority’s dislike of conflict • Influence is reciprocal • Every group member both influences and is influenced, irrespective of status

23. ‘Genetic’ model of social influence(Moscovici, 1976) • Emphasis of ‘genetic’ model on growthand innovation as basic processes of social life • Social influence doesn’t just adapt people to to a social system • Continual production of system • Continual change of system So, people don’t merely conform to systems – they actively participate in and change systems

24. Power and Influence (Moscovici, 1976) Confusion within earlier social influence research between power and influence • Power is the basis of social influence • Those who are dependent conform to those with power • Influence is a process of submission to social pressure • Power and influence are alternatives • Coercion when can’t influence • If can influence, don’t need power

25. Summary of Moscovici’s theoretical framework A consistent minority: • Disrupts the established norm • Produces doubt and uncertainty in majority • Makes itself visible • Focuses attention on itself • Shows that there is an alternative point of view • Demonstrates certainty, confidence & commitment to the alternative point of view • Does not compromise or move (flexible, not rigid) • Implies the only solution is for the majority to accept the minority view.

26. Differences between Asch and Moscovici Asch and Moscovici viewed conformity differently: • Asch: • conformity as a process to reduce cognitive uncertainty • Moscovici: • conformity as a process to reduce social conflict (and people don’t like conflict) • Agree to avoid social conflict (nervous, anxious)

27. Experimental paradigm Moscovici et al (1969) • Responses to consistent minority influence • Told female Ss that in colour perception experiment • Task was to judge the colour of a series of slides that would vary in intensity of colour and name this colour aloud when seated in a row of groups of 6. • In each group there were 2 confederates • (Control group of 6 naïve Ss).

28. Consistent minority influence Green Blue Green Blue Blue Blue Confed 1 Confed 2 Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4

29. Percent of green responses given by majority Ss

30. Variations of theme: • Inconsistent minority • Sometimes said green in a random order, regardless of hue of the blue slide • Discrimination task • Ss had to also later complete 2nd task in private judging varied colour of slide from green-blue • 3 blue and 3 green • 10 blue/green • Slides presented randomly

31. RESULTS (of subsequent experiments) • Inconsistent minority • 0nly 1.25% said green • Also, changed order of confederates to being placed 1st and 4th • No effect • Discrimination task • Ss who publicly kept to blue, privately stated sig more ambiguous blue/green slides as green • So, a public vs. private distinction The impact of the consistent minority was greater at the perceptual than at the public, verbal level

32. Comparison of minority and majority influence Moscovici & Lage (1976) Blue-green paradigm, 6 conditions • Controls respond to stimuli in writing • (no group influence) • Consistent minority • (Same as before: 2 confederates, 4 Ss) • Inconsistent minority • (Same as before: 2 confederates, 4 Ss) • Consistent minority of 1 • (who went first: 1 confederate, 3 Ss) • Unanimous consistent majority • (who went first: 3 confederates, 1 Ss) • Non-unanimous consistent majority • (4 confederates, 2 Ss, varied order)

33. Replication of Asch’s ‘lines’ conformity exps using blue/green paradigm But, when tested in private, only the consistent minority of 2 influenced change of belief

34. Majority influence revisited • Movement to majority position is due to: • The common belief that there is truth in numbers (informational influence) • Due to the concern for being accepted by those numbers (normative influence) • Underlying this social influence is a generally positive judgment of and attraction toward to majority by those being influenced (Wood et al, 1994)

35. Conformity studies of majority influence • In conformity studies of majority influence (all others in group are opposed to the subject): • Normative pressures lead to public influence • Opinion uniformity is valued because it provides group members with social support for, and validation of their views (Festinger, 1954) • Dissenters are disliked because they impede group goals (Levine, 1989) • Informational pressures lead to public and private influence • So, do minorities have less social influence? • Or, is it because minorities tend to be disliked that people do not wish to conform in public?

36. Minority vs. majority influences Depth of processing (Moscovici & Lage, 1976) • Minority influence = deep • A minority, without obtaining substantial overt acceptance of its point of view can influence the basis of other people’s judgements. • Majority influence = shallow • A majority, if unanimous, can make almost all accept its point of view without affecting the underlying perceptual-cognitive system.

37. Theory of minority conversion Moscovici (1980) • Majorities produce public compliance rather than conversion • Direct, immediate, temporary effect of social influence • Minorities challenge beliefs and produce private conversion • Indirect, delayed, private effect of social influence

38. Dual Process Model • Majorities induce conformity by means of a public comparison process • Without giving attention or thought to the issue itself • (no conversion of attitude) • Minorities induce conformity by means of a private validation process • Directed cognitive activity aimed at understanding why the minority consistently holds on to its opinion • Attention diverted to the object, a latent process of conversion as Ss begin to look at the object as the minority does • (conversion of attitude)

39. Evaluation of dual-process model WOOD et al. (1994) • Meta-analysis of 97 studies of minority influence • 3 kinds of influence were reviewed: • Public judgment change (c.f. compliance) • Private change on issues directly related to the appeal (c.f. conversion) • Private change on issues indirectly related to the appeal (i.e. changes in after-image colour effects, or indirectly related beliefs)

40. Wood et al (1994) • Found that patterns of influence were consistent with Moscovici’s dual-process model • Minorities < change than majorities on direct measures of influences • Minorities > influence on indirect private measures • But offered different interpretation of findings:

41. Wood et al’s interpretation of results • Social influence occurs not because of different cognitive processes • But because Ss don’t want to align themselves with deviant social groups • i.e. studies showed less direct private agreement when they defined the minority source as a member of a minority social group (e.g. homosexual student, or radical feminist)

42. Conclusions • Moscovici raised questions about nature of social influence • Differences in deep/shallow processing between minority and majority social influences • Wood et al concluded • Effects of social influence may not be related to different levels of processing but may be more related to social stigma of deviant minorities