Social influence – conformity and integroup relations

Lecture 14

Social influence

• Social influence = change of judgments, opinions and attitudes under the impact of judgments, opinions and attitudes of other people

Autokinetic effect

• M. Sherif (1935)– Optical illusion of moving light– Establishing individual norms (where is the

light point)– Introducing experimenter’s confederate with

different norm – Convergence of norms creation of a group

norm

Experimental equipment in autokinetic effect experiments

Two procedures

• I – first individual norms followed by creation of group norms

• II – first group norms followed by studies of individuals

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I day II day III day IV day

esti

mat

ed m

ovem

ent

of li

ght

person 1person 2person 3

Creation of a group norm

After: Sherif & Sherif, 1969

Autokinetic effect

• Reversed procedure: – First creation of the group norm– Afterwards: subjects studied individually– Effect: persistance of the group norm

Conformity

• Solomon Asch (1951)• Comparison of lines (line matching)• 18 trials• 7 persons, including one naive participant

and six confederates of the experimenter• Participant – position 6

Table arrangement

1

2

3 4 5

7

6

Experimental design

• 37 trials: participantsloudly announce results of comparisons

• 6 neutral trials: the first two trials + 4 randomly distributed confederates gave correct answer

• 31 trials conderates give wrong answers

Results

• Control group: 37 subjects - 35 persons without error

• Experimental group: – 37% errors– only 25% subjects without any error– 28% subjects - 8 or more errors– The majority - 1-7 errors

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

num

ber

of e

rror

s

control

pressure ofmajority

Results of Solomon Asch experiment

Mechanisms of conforming behaviors

• Informational influence: others as source of information private conformity or conversion

• Normative influence :conformity through desire to be liked or fear of rejection/ridicule public conformity or compliance

Which type of influence when?

• Ambiguous stimuli conversion – eg. Autokinetic effect (Sherif)

• Unambiguous stimuli compliance– eg. Line matching (Asch)

Reducing conformity

• Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions• Devil’s advocate or having a supporter• Size of the group

Devil’s advocate or having a supporter

• Modification of Asch’s task I– Adding one person who „saw” like subject– Result: drop in conformity

• Modification of Asch’s task II – Adding a person who gave even more

extreme answers than rest of the group– Result: drop in conformity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

control

pressure ofmajoritysupporter

Role of a supporter in reducing compliance

Credibility of the supporter

• Eexperiment by Allen & Levine (1971) • Conditions:

– (a) Supporter known to have very poor vision (invalid social support))

– (b) Supporter known to have good vision (valid social support))

• Results: Conformity higher in (a) than (b) but lower than in no support condition

Role of social support: credible and incredible supporter

00,10,20,3

0,40,50,60,7

0,80,9

1

no support

incrediblesupportercrediblesupporter

After: Allen i Levine, 1971

Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions

• Experiment by Ross, Bierbauer, Hoffman (1976)– Asch’s paradigm– Ss paid for correct answers– Ss informed that other Ss were in different payoff

conditions

• Results: drop in conformity

Instruction differentiating experimental conditions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

control

pressure ofmajorityother payoffconditions

Exp. Ross, Bierbrauer & Hoffman, 1976)

Size of group

• Conformity inversely related to the power function of the size of the group

• Conformity depends on size of the group that inserts pressure and size of the group that is subject to pressure (Social Influence Model by Tanford & Penrod)

Social Influence Model by Tanford & Penrod

Culture and conformity (obedience to the authority of the elders)

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

conformity

After: Garbarino & Bronfenbrenner, 1976

Minority influence

• Serge Moscovici (1976)

• Minority inserts influence through consistency

Eexperiment by Moscovici

• Task: colour perception, 36 blue slides • Conditions: 6 persons, including 2

confederates (position 1 and 4)

Experimental design

1

23 4

5

6

participants

Experimental conditions:

• Consistent condition: green on all trials• Inconsistent condition: :

– „green” - 24 times– „blue” - 12 times  

• Results: consistent minority inducedmore change

Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

licz

ba b

łędó

w

controlhigh consistencylow consistency

After: Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969)

Mechanisms of majority & minority influences

• Majority compliance without conversion (normative influence)

• Minority conversion without compliance (informational influence)

Minority influence: normative or informational?

After image of blue

After image of green

Colour of after image as measure of type of conformity (compliance vs.

konversion)

• After image yellow seen blue normative influence

• After image purple seen green informational influence

Experiment: Moscovici & Personnaz (1980)

• Task: colour recognition + naming the colour of the after-image

• 5 blue slides– after image of blue yellow-orange– after image of green red-purple

• Procedure: 4 stages

Stage I

• Private (without confederate)– write down the colour– rate the after-image

yellow purple

1 9

Feedback information

Ss informed that their response shared by :

81.8 % people 18,2% people

Subject in majority Subject in minority

The remaining percentage saw GREEN

Stage II

• 15 trials (with confederate)• tested in pairs• name of the colour given publicly• no judgment of after image• the first subject (confederate) said

GREEN • this perceived as a minority (1) or

majority (2) response

Stage III

• With confederate• 15 trials• Privacy conditions: writing down the colour

+rating the after-image

Stage IV

• Private and without confederate• writing down the colour +rating the after-

image

• Results: more conversion in minority conditions

Results

Obedience

Obedience

• Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)

Experimental creation of obedience (Milgram, 1974)

• Teacher – pupil• Punishing errors• Voltage: 15-450 V• 26/40 subjects continued to the very end

Remote condition

100

80

60

50

40

20

10

Lekki Umiarkowany

Silny B. silny Intensywny

B.intensywny

Niebezp. 450V

„uczeń” wali w ścianę, potemmilknie

Uczeń waliw ścianę, protestując

Aż 65% badanychposłuchało, aplikując„uczniowi” śmiertelnądawkę prądu

% badanych

Siła szoku

Results

Predicted and real results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

predictedmalesfemales

After: Milgram (1974)

Factors that enable obedience

• Gradual escalation• Experimenter’s detachment

Reducing obedience

• Two experimenters who disagree whether to continue or not

• Rebelling confederates (one stopping at 150 V, another at 210 V)

• Experimenter giving orders by telephone• Ss being close to the “pupil” or touching him• Ss having to choose whether to give the next shock• Another „subject” giving orders instead of an

experimenter

Reducing obedience

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70pr

ocen

t os

ób

originalexperimentexperimenter notpresentanother subjectgiving orders

After: Milgram (1974)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

proc

ent

osób remote

voice-feedbackproximityproximity-touch

Reducing obedience – manipulating closeness of the victim

Milgram, 1963, 1965)

Are dispositions altogether not important?

• ??

Other examples of social influence

• Social facilitation

• Social loafing

Social facilitation

Social facilitation

• 1897 - Triplett – cyclists ride faster when in group than when alone

• Robert Zajonc (1965): The mere presence effect

Results

• Presence of others facilitates performance on easy tasks, impedes performance on complex tasks

• Subjects: people, cockroaches

Explanations

• Level of arousal (R. B. Zajonc)• Evaluation anxiety (N. B. Cottrell)• Others as distractors (G.S. Sanders, R.S.

Baron, D.L. Moore)

Level of arousal

Presence of others

Increased arousal increased drive

Increased probability od dominant reaction

Facilitation on easy task

Handicap on difficult task

After: Zajonc (1965, 1980)

Evaluation anxiety

Presence of others

Evaluation anxiety No anxiety

No effectarousal

Intensification of dominant reaction

Facilitation on easy task

Handicap on difficult task

Others as distractors

Distraction

Lowered performance Increased effort

Difficult task Easy task

Worse performance Better performance

Social loafing

Social loafing

• 1882/1887: Ringelman – pulling a line in groups: one- , two – three -, eight persons– 1 person - 63 kg– 2 persons - 118 kg (loss - 8 kg)– 3 persons - 160 kg (loss - 29 kg)– 8 persons - loss 256 kg

• Bibb Latane:– pulling line– aplauding– shouting

Social loafing

Social loafing

Cooperation lowers individual performance

Explanation

Group productivity

Potentialproductivity

Coordinationlosses

Motivationallosses

= - -

Social loafing results from:•Decrease in motivation

•Decrease in coordination

After: Latane, Williams i Harkins (1979)

Social loafing disappears when:

• Performance of individual members is supervised

• Each member has clear standards of performance

• Task is engaging• Group is coherent (group morale)• An individual knows that he or she is good

and that the group outcome depends on the best performance

After: Zaccaro, 1984

Other examples of „social loafing”

• Public vs. private property

• „free-riding”

Group tasks and group productivity

Group performance

Group performance

Potential groupperformance

Losses

Types of group tasks (Ivan Steiner)

• Additive tasks– Group performance = sum of performances of group members (eg.

Pulling line, applauding etc.)

• Disjunctive tasks– Group performance depends on performance of the best member

(eg. Creative tasks, solving problems)

• Conjunctive tasks– Group performanve depends on performance of the worst member

(eg. Mountain climbing)

• Additive and disjunctive tasks = groups better than individual members

• Conjunctive tasks – individual members better than groups

Leadership

Types of leaders(Bales & Slater)

• Social-emotional leader– Cares about good atmosphere in a group

• Task leader– Imposes structure, organizes communication etc. .

Two types of leaders and group productivity (I. Steiner)

Actual productivity

Potential productivity

Losses in productivity

Task leader increases this

Social-emotional

leader decreases this

Group productivity

Potential productivity

Coordinationlosses

Motivationallosses

= - -

Social-emotional leader

Task leader

Risky shift & group polarization effect

Risky shift

• Stoner (1961): Group decisions more risky than decisions of individual members

Group polarization

• Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969): group opinions more polarized than individual opinions

• Direction of polarization depends on initial average group opinion

Group polarization

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

before after

dyskusji

atti

tude

De-Gaulle

US foreingpolicy

After: Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)

Group polarization effects

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

atti

tude

prejudiced unprejudiced

before discussionafter discussion

After: Meyers & Bishop, 1970

Possible mechanisms of risky shift

• Festinger – Theory of social comparisons– Social value of risk (everybody wants to be more

risky than others)– Comparison with others higher motivation to

take risky decisions

Risk value

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

peermyselfadmired persons

After: Levinger & Schneider, 1969

Explanations of group polarization

• Burnstein i Vinokur: more available arguments during group discussion polarization effect

• Tesser’s effect – thinking about a target leads to polarization of an attitude

• Stability of extreme positions: undecided persons more more towards extreme positions than the other way round