2. Social influence – conformity and integroup relations Lecture 14

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

4. 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

5. Experimental equipment in autokinetic effect experiments

6. Two procedures I – first individual norms followed by creation of group norms II – first group norms followed by studies of individuals

7. Creation of a group norm After: Sherif & Sherif, 1969

9. Autokinetic effect Reversed procedure: –First creation of the group norm –Afterwards: subjects studied individually –Effect: persistance of the group norm

10. 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

12. Table arrangement 1 2 3 4 5 7 6

14. 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

15. 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

16. Results of Solomon Asch experiment

17. 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

18. Which type of influence when? Ambiguous stimuli  conversion –eg. Autokinetic effect (Sherif) Unambiguous stimuli  compliance –eg. Line matching (Asch)

19. Reducing conformity Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions Devil’s advocate or having a supporter Size of the group

20. 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

21. Role of a supporter in reducing compliance

22. 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

23. Role of social support: credible and incredible supporter After: Allen i Levine, 1971

24. 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

25. Instruction differentiating experimental conditions Exp. Ross, Bierbrauer & Hoffman, 1976)

26. 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)

27. Social Influence Model by Tanford & Penrod

28. Culture and conformity (obedience to the authority of the elders) After: Garbarino & Bronfenbrenner, 1976

30. Minority influence Serge Moscovici (1976) Minority inserts influence through consistency

31. Eexperiment by Moscovici Task: colour perception, 36 blue slides Conditions: 6 persons, including 2 confederates (position 1 and 4)

32. Experimental design 1 2 34 5 6 participants

33. Experimental conditions: Consistent condition: green on all trials Inconsistent condition: : –„green” - 24 times –„blue” - 12 times Results: consistent minority induced more change

34. Results After: Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969)

35. Mechanisms of majority & minority influences Majority  compliance without conversion (normative influence) Minority  conversion without compliance (informational influence)

36. Minority influence: normative or informational?

39. After image of blue

40. After image of green

41. 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

42. 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

43. Stage I Private (without confederate) –write down the colour –rate the after-image yellow purple 19

44. Feedback information Ss informed that their response shared by : 81.8 % people18,2% people Subject in majoritySubject in minority The remaining percentage saw GREEN

45. 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

46. Stage III With confederate 15 trials Privacy conditions: writing down the colour +rating the after-image

47. Stage IV Private and without confederate writing down the colour +rating the after- image Results: more conversion in minority conditions

48. Results

49. Obedience

50. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)

51. Experimental creation of obedience (Milgram, 1974) Teacher – pupil Punishing errors Voltage: 15-450 V 26/40 subjects continued to the very end

52. Remote condition 100 80 60 50 40 20 10 Lekki Umiar kowany Silny B. silny Inten sywny B.inten sywny Niebezp. 450V „uczeń” wali w ścianę, potem milknie Uczeń wali w ścianę, protestując Aż 65% badanych posłuchało, aplikując „uczniowi” śmiertelną dawkę prądu % badanych Siła szoku

53. Results

54. Predicted and real results After: Milgram (1974)

55. Factors that enable obedience Gradual escalation Experimenter’s detachment

56. 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

57. Reducing obedience After: Milgram (1974)

58. Reducing obedience – manipulating closeness of the victim Milgram, 1963, 1965)

59. Are dispositions altogether not important? ??

60. Other examples of social influence Social facilitation Social loafing

61. Social facilitation

62. 1897 - Triplett – cyclists ride faster when in group than when alone Robert Zajonc (1965): The mere presence effect

63. Results Presence of others facilitates performance on easy tasks, impedes performance on complex tasks Subjects: people, cockroaches

64. Explanations Level of arousal (R. B. Zajonc) Evaluation anxiety (N. B. Cottrell) Others as distractors (G.S. Sanders, R.S. Baron, D.L. Moore)

65. 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)

66. Evaluation anxiety Presence of others Evaluation anxietyNo anxiety No effectarousal Intensification of dominant reaction Facilitation on easy task Handicap on difficult task

67. Others as distractors Distraction Lowered performanceIncreased effort Difficult taskEasy task Worse performance Better performance

68. Social loafing

70. 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

71. Social loafing

72. Cooperation lowers individual performance

73. Explanation Group productivity Potential productivity Coordination losses Motivational losses = -- Social loafing results from: Decrease in motivation Decrease in coordination

74. After: Latane, Williams i Harkins (1979)

75. 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

76. After: Zaccaro, 1984

77. Other examples of „social loafing” Public vs. private property „free-riding”

78. Group tasks and group productivity

79. Group performance Group performance Potential group performance Losses

80. 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

81. Leadership

82. Types of leaders(Bales & Slater) Social-emotional leader –Cares about good atmosphere in a group Task leader –Imposes structure, organizes communication etc..

83. 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

84. Group productivity Potential productivity Coordination losses Motivational losses = -- Social- emotional leader Task leader

85. Risky shift & group polarization effect

86. Risky shift Stoner (1961): Group decisions more risky than decisions of individual members

87. Group polarization Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969): group opinions more polarized than individual opinions Direction of polarization depends on initial average group opinion

88. Group polarization After: Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)

89. Group polarization effects After: Meyers & Bishop, 1970

90. 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

91. Risk value After: Levinger & Schneider, 1969

92. 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