Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Conformity - Coggle Diagram

- - - - In light of studies like this one, researchers have concluded that injunctive norms are more powerful than descriptive norms in producing desirable behavior. After all, injunctive norms tap into normative conformity -- we conform (e.g. refraining from littering) because someone's behaviour reminds us that our society disapproves of littering.
      - While norms are always present to some extent, they are not always salient to us. To promote socially beneficial behavior, something in the situation needs to draw our attention to the relevant norm. Anything that highlights injunctive norms can be used to create positive behavioural change.
    - - When providing facts about e.g. how much students drink at a school drink on average, for students who already drink very little, finding out that the average student on campus drinks more than they do can lead them to increase their alcohol intake to be more like others. It is important to consider that there are different types of people receiving your message (above-average and below-average levels)
      - Shultz et al., 2007: conserving electricity
        Descriptive norm condition vs descriptive norm + injunctive norm condition -- descriptive norm message had a positive effect on those using above-average levels of energy, but had a boomerang effect on those who consumed less energy than average, while the descriptive norm + injunctive norm message was uniformly successful.
  - - - See themselves as agreeable people and feel committed to a helpful course of action; to say no to a follow-up request, even if it comes from a different person, could trigger feelings of inconsistency or dissonance
    - - The first, bigger request makes the second "ask" seem less daunting in comparison; in addition, there are feelings of reciprocity as it seems like the requestor has made some concessions
- - - - Sherif (1936): Autokinetic effect
        (ambiguous situation)
      - Can lead to private acceptance or public compliance
      - The importance of being accurate makes people more susceptible to informational social influence e.g. eyewitness identification study
      - When will people conform to informational social influence?
        
        When the situation is ambiguous
        
        When the situation is a crisis
        
        When other people are experts
  - - - Social norms
      - One reason why normative conformity is powerful because deviant group members are often ridiculed, punished, or even rejected by other group members
      - Results in public compliance with the group's beliefs and behaviours but not necessarily in private acceptance
      - E.g. Asch Line-Judgment Studies
        
        The situation was not ambiguous, but the fear of being the lone dissenter was so strong despite the other participants being strangers that people conformed, at least occasionally
        
        When participants were allowed to write down their answers on a piece of paper instead of saying them out loud, conformity dropped dramatically
      - On baseline trials, when participants answered alone, the fMRI results indicated increased activity in the posterior brain areas dedicated to vision and perception. When they conformed to wrong answers, activation occurred in the same areas; however, when they chose to give the right answer and thus disagree with the group's unanimous wrong answer, the visual/perceptual areas of the brain were not activated. Instead, different areas of the brain became more active: the amygdala, an area devoted to negative emotions, and the right caudate nucleus, an area devoted to modulating social behavior.
        
        Suggests that normative social influence occurs because people feel negative emotions, such as discomfort and tension, when they go against the group.
      - For an easy task, when participants were led to believe that it was not important that they give the right answer, they conformed on 33% of the critical trials -- very close to the rate in Asch's line-judgment task. In the high-importance condition, they conformed less (16% of the critical trials), but they still conformed sometimes.
        
        These findings underscore the importance of normative social influence: Even when the group is wrong, the right answer is obvious, and there are strong incentives to be accurate, some people still find it difficult to risk social disapproval, even from strangers
      - People are often quick to deny that they've been influenced by normative considerations
        
        Nolan and colleagues (2008): most effective persuasive message was telling consumers that their neighbours were conserving energy, but participants believed that this message had little effect on them, especially compared to participants who received information regarding protecting the environment or saving money -- we often underestimate the power of normative social influence
      - The consequences of resisting normative social influence
        
        The group would try to bring you "back into the fold" chiefly through increased communication.
        
        If these tactics didn't work, your friends would most likely say negative things to you and about you and start to withdraw from you.
        
        Schachter (1951) demonstrated how the group responds to an individual who ignores normative influence. The deviant became the target of most comments and questions from the real participants throughout most of the discussion, and then, near the end, communication with him dropped sharply. The other group members had tried to convince him to agree with them; when it appeared that it wouldn't work, they started to ignore him altogether. They also punished him -- in a questionnaire, they nominated the deviant to be eliminated from further discussions and assigned unimportant or boring jobs to him.
      - When will people conform to normative social influence?
        
        Social Impact Theory:
        
        Strength: How important to you is the group?
        
        Immediacy: How close is the group to you in space and time during the attempt to influence you?
        
        Number: How many people are in the group?
        
        Conformity increases as the number of people in the group increase, but once the group reaches four or five other people, conformity does not increase much (Asch, 1955 and later researchers)
        
        Normative pressures are much stronger when they come from people whose friendship, love, and respect we cherish because there is a large cost to losing their love and respect
        
        A consequence is that it can be dangerous to have policy decisions made by highly cohesive groups because they care more about pleasing each other and avoiding conflict than arriving at the best, most logical decision
        
        Idiosyncrasy credits: The very act of conforming normatively to important groups most of the time can earn you the right to deviate occasionally without serious consequences.
        
        Asch (1955): The importance of having an ally -- although still disagreeing with the majority of the group, having one ally dramatically changed the situation, helping the subject resist normative pressures. People conformed on an average of only 6% of the trials in this study, compared to 32% when there were no allies.
        
        US Supreme Court example
        
        People tend to conform more when the group's culture is collectivistic (and this is not seen as an act of submission or cowardice, but one of tact and sensitivity). A meta-analysis of 133 Asch line-judgment studies in 17 countries showed that participants from more collectivistic cultures showed higher rates of conformity. However:
        
        Two Asch-type studies found that when the group unanimously gave the incorrect answer, Japanese students were less conformist in general than North Americans. In Japan, cooperation and loyalty are directed to the groups in which one belongs and with which one identifies; there is little expectation that one should conform to the behavior of strangers.
        
        Similarly, conformity was much higher in a British sample when the participants thought the other group members were psychology majors like themselves rather than art history majors.
        
        Similarly, German research participants have shown less conformity in the Asch experiment than North Americans. In Germany, conformity to strangers is less valued than conformity to a few well-defined groups.
        
        In addition, Berry explored the issue of conformity as a cultural value by comparing the Inuit society that relied on hunting or fishing (independence, assertiveness, and adventurousness) and the Temne society who were primarily agricultural (cooperativeness, conformity, and acquiescence) -- indeed, the Temne had a tendency to accept the suggestions of fellow group members in the study, while the Inuit almost completely disregarded them
- - - - Majorities often obtain public compliance because of normative social influence, while minorities are more likely to achieve private acceptance because of informational social influence.
- - - - In a variation with three teachers (two confederates), seeing a peer disobey made it much easier for the actual participants to disobey too. Only 10% of the participants gave the maximum level of shock in this version of the study.
    - - In another version, there were three critical changes:
        
        The experimenter never said which shock levels were to be given, leaving the decision up to the participant.
        
        Before the study began, the experimenter received a telephone call and had to leave the room, telling the participant to continue without him.
        
        There was a confederate playing the role of an additional teacher, who gave the idea that they increase the level of shock each time the learner made a mistake and insisted that the participant follow this procedure.
        
        In this situation, where the person giving commands had no expertise, full compliance dropped to only 20%.
      - In an additional variation, two experimenters disagreed about whether they should continue the study. At this point, every participant stopped responding. When the authorities' definition of the situation became unclear, the participants stopped conforming.