Conformity and Social Norms Evaluate research on conformity to group norms. Discuss factors influencing conformity

CONFORMITY Pick a definition… Definition: A type of social influence in which individuals change their attitudes or behavior to adhere to existing social norms. Definition: The tendency to adjust one’s thoughts, feelings, or behavior in ways that are in agreement with those of a particular individual or group, or with social norms. CONFORMITY Pick a definition…

Social Norms Set of rules based on socially or culturally shared beliefs of how individuals ought to behave. EXAMPLES

States of Conformity Private – a private acceptance of social norms K Pop is too mainstream States of Conformity Private – a private acceptance of social norms What I THINK Public – overt behavior consistent with social norms What I SAY I LOVE K Pop

Latané & Darley 1968 - RESULTS Smoked-filled Room Condition 1 – Alone Normal reaction (investigation + reporting) 75% reported the smoke 2 minutes to report smoke Condition 2 – 2 Passive Subjects 1 out of 10 reported the smoke Opened window and continued working Condition 3 – 3 Naïve Subjects Only 3 out of 24 reported the smoke Waited until smoke got heavy

Types of social influence Why we conform Types of social influence

Social Influence Informational Normative The need for certainty When unsure, we look to the majority We assume the majority knows best and follow them The need to belong We look for the group norm We follow the group norm to fit in We fear rejection

Jennes 1932 Jar of beans Experiment

Jenness 1932 – Jar of Beans Jennes was the first person to study conformity. METHODOLOGY Asked people individually to estimate how many beans the bottle contained, then put the group in a room with the bottle, and asked them to provide a group estimate. He then interviewed the subjects individually again, and asked if they would like to change their original estimates, or stay with the group's estimate.

Jenness 1932 – Jar of Beans RESULTS Almost all changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate. Jenness found that when participants were asked separately after the group estimate, the estimates of the participants had come closer together around the central/group figure.  CONCLUSION When we are unsure of the answer, we will look to others in the group – assuming that a group guess must be more correct than an individual guess. We conform to the group norm.

Methodology- Complex social situation reduced to a Lab experiment Lacks ecological validity – In real-life situations conformity usually takes place when people are in groups with whom they have long-lasting ties; groups of friend, colleagues or family members rather than artificial groups of strangers. Evaluation

Ethics - no informed consent – real aim of the study was not given to Ps. Ethics - Problem being that participants might have behaved differently if they were made aware that they were being tested on conformity. Ethics – Argued to be ok because it was a minor and justifiable deception. Evaluation

Social Influence Skit Time! Informational - he need for certainty. When we are in ambiguous situations, we engage in social comparison. DUAL PROCESS MODEL Normative - The need for social acceptance and approval. Referent - We are more likely to conform to those groups that we feel we are members of. In other words, we are more likely to conform to an in-­‐group than an out-­‐group. Dual process model – people conform because they want to be right and they want to be liked Skit Time! Social Influence

ASCH’s paradigm Study #2

Asch’s (1951) Experiment Watch this short explanation video:

Asch’s (1951) Hypothesis Solomon Asch hypothesized that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong; However, when surrounded by individuals all voicing an incorrect answer, participants would provide incorrect responses on a high proportion of the questions

Asch’s (1951) Read and make notes of: Asch 1951 AIM METHOD RESULTS Pearson – p.127 Crane – p.119-120

Types of social influence Why we conform Types of social influence

Social Influence Informational Normative The need for certainty When unsure, we look to the majority We assume the majority knows best and follow them The need to belong We look for the group norm We follow the group norm to fit in We fear rejection

There are several studies which question Asch’s results. Asch himself found that as group-­‐size increased, conformity increased -­‐ though large groups tend to result in reactance. Asch also found that with just one dissenter, conformity decreased by 24%. Perrin & Spencer (1990) replicated Asch’s study unsuccessfully, using engineering and medical students. - confidence Criticized as an experiment of its time 1950s in the USA was particularly high in conformity (Cold War) ASCH 1951 Evaluation

Stang (1973) found that participants who refused to conform tended to have high self‐esteem. Overly simplistic. – conformity involves many more factors not taken into account through this study. The participant have no vested interest in identifying the correct length of the line. It is not something that they would have had strong opinions about. Therefore, the task lacks ecological validity. ASCH 1951 Evaluation

Factors that affect conformity Group Size Asch 1955 (Moodle & Crane p.120-121) Unanimity Confidence Perrin & Spencer 1988 (Crane p. 121) Culture Bond & Smith 1996 (Moodle & Pearson p.137) Minority Influence Moscovici & Lage 1969 (Moodle)

Factors that affect conformity More Less Group Size More people = Less people = Unanimity Unanimous = Non-unanimous = Confidence More confidence = Less confidence = Self-Esteem More self-esteem = Less self-esteem = Factors that affect conformity

Factors Confidence Culture Confidence plays a part Perrin & Spencer 1988 Crane p.120-21 Method Used Medical and Engineering students – replicated Asch Results Conformity = close to nil Confidence plays a part Bond & Smith 1996 Pearson p.137 Method Meta-Analysis of Asch Studies Results Collectivistic = 37% Individualistic = 25% Culture plays a part

Factors Group Size Minority Influence Group Size plays a part Asch 1955 Method Replicated with 1, 2, 3 and more confederates Results One – close to nil Two – 13.6% conformity Three – 31.8% coformity Group Size plays a part Moscovici & Lage 1969 most important aspect of behavioral style is the consistency with which people hold their position Method 2 confederates, 4 Participants Judged blue slides Confederates said ‘green’ Results More than 8% of responses was ‘green’ 32% of Ps yielded at least once Minority can also influence majority

Make your own experiment Choose a factor to test Examples: No soap radio joke All starring in awe …

Other concepts Group Think Risky Shift Pearson p. 131-132 Crane p.122 Janis (1972) theory Baron (2005) counter-theory Pearson p. 130-131 Wallach et al. (1962) study Social Comparison Theory theory Social Identity Theory Risky shift – tendency for groups to make riskier decisions (group polarization). Group make more polarized decisions (than when alone), based on the initial position. Cautious ---- Risky (eg. Emo group tendency to be more emo in group) Baron 2005 – ubiquity groupthink theory: identifies conditions in which groupthink happens in more mundane and temporary

Other concepts Minority influence Crane – p.121-122 Moscovici and Lage (1976) study Risky shift – tendency for groups to make riskier decisions (group polarization). Group make more polarized decisions (than when alone), based on the initial position. Cautious ---- Risky (eg. Emo group tendency to be more emo in group) Baron 2005 – ubiquity groupthink theory: identifies conditions in which groupthink happens in more mundane and temporary