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

3. 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…

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Types of social influence
Why we conform
Types of social influence

8. 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

9. Jennes 1932 Jar of beans Experiment

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. ASCH’s paradigm
Study #2

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

17. 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

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

19. Types of social influence
Why we conform
Types of social influence

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

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

24. 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

25. Factors Confidence Culture Confidence plays a part
Perrin & Spencer 1988
Crane p
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

26. 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

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

28. Other concepts Group Think Risky Shift Pearson p. 131-132 Crane p.122
Janis (1972)
theory
Baron (2005)
counter-theory
Pearson p
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

29. Other concepts Minority influence
Crane – p 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