Conformity, compliance,
and obedience
Vs. persuasion
 Doesn’t have to be intentional
 At least one person affecting the attitudes
or behaviors of another

Social influence

2 types:
◦ Informational (want to be correct)
◦ Normative (want to be accepted)

3 forms:
◦ Obedience
◦ Compliance
◦ Conformity
Types of influence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAyr
0kWRGE
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBa89
XhxcTs&feature=plcp&context=C33a6dca
UDOEgsToPDskKsN-LaYflZQlft9OK8NUaQ

Conformity examples
Sherif, 1935
 Autokinetic effect (estimates of how far a
light moves)


8
7
6
5
4
Participant 1
3
Participant 2
Participant 3
2
1
0
alone
1
2
3
Number of group members
Early conformity studies



Judging the length of lines (video from earlier)
76% of people conformed and gave a clearly
wrong answer at least 1 out of 12 times
Bond & Smith meta-analysis, 122 studies in 17
countries. More conformity if:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦


Bigger majority
More women
The majority is your ingroup
More ambiguous stimuli
More collectivist countries
Public compliance vs. private acceptance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAyr0kWRG
E
Asch, 1951







What people do vs. what we think is
appropriate
Problems with normative campaigns to
change behaviors
Help the hotel save energy
Help save the environment
Partner with us to help save the environment
Help save the environment for future
generations
"Join your fellow citizens in helping to save
the environment"
Descriptive vs. injunctive norms
Descriptive: “energy usage was above or
below average”
 Injunctive: add a smiley or frowny face

Energy norms

STONE : SCULPTOR ::
(A) brick : house
(B) words : poet
(C) bust : portrait
(D) scalpel : surgeon
(E) mine : ore
INVARIABLE : CHANGE
(A) incurable : disease
(B) unfathomable : depth
(C) extraneous : proposition
(D) ineffable : expression
(E) variegated : appearance

People are influenced as a multiplicative
function of the
◦ Strength
◦ Immediacy, and
◦ Number of others
Social impact theory (Latane,
1981)
Application 1:
Conformity and Imitation
Perception of
“consensus” occurs here,
according to Asch, who
used Swarthmore
undergraduates.
A replication of Asch’s
study with high school
students
“Craning and Gawking”
Application 2:
Social Psychophysics of
Embarrassment
Latané & Harkins,
1976
Porter, 1939
Application 3:
Social Impact of News
Events
Bassett & Latané
 Read a newspaper
 Pointed at articles
they read
 IVs:

◦ Number of people
involved
◦ Distance from
Columbus, O

DVs: Which articles?
◦ How long did they
spend on it.
Application 4:
Tipping in Restaurants

Freeman, Walker,
Borden, & Latané
(1975)
◦ 1,159 evening diners in
Columbus, Ohio
◦ Party size varied
naturally
◦ DV: size of tip
Dynamic social impact theory
(Latane, 1996)

The Four Cs
◦ What culture is, is determined by:
 Clustering: Group members will become more
similar to those closer to them.
 Correlation: Emergent associations between
elements over time (this results in “culture”).
◦ How cultures change is determined by:
 Consolidation: Reduction in diversity within the
group (the tendency toward majority influence).
 Continuing diversity: the spatial distribution of
communication “protects” some minority
viewpoints. There is rarely complete obliteration of
the minority.
Headache remedies
Weiss, 1994
Country music purchases
Weiss, 1994
Language






“Stronger” languages grow.
Physical and other features “protect”
language diversity.
Languages with more and more dispersed
speakers grow.
Languages cluster at various levels.
Language correlates with other elements
of culture or identity.
Languages consolidate (15,000
<6800).
Language example
Face-to-face discussions
 Computer discussions
 Dorm studies
 Neighborhoods and retirement
communities

Other evidence
First, try to convince them
 Then, ignore them

How do we get deviates to go
along with the group?






Reciprocity
Consistency
Social proof
Liking
Authority
Scarcity
Cialdini’s influence techniques



Shock the “learner”
63% went all the way in the basic paradigm
Factors affecting obedience
◦ Proximity of the victim
 Empathetic cures
 Cognitive narrowing
◦
◦
◦
◦
Power of the institution
Presence and legitimacy of the authority figure
Conflicting messages
Group effects
Milgram’s obedience study

Across countries
◦
◦
◦
◦

South Africa, 87.5%
Jordan, 73% and 62.5%
Austria, 80%
Spain, 50%
Across time
◦ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwqNP9HR
y7Y
Get similar results
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QM
QXIjYVU&list=UUlQzKGw31DagWzBYebtlt
Ng&index=23&feature=plcp
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mpA
big8ttY&feature=plcp&context=C328b3ba
UDOEgsToPDskLmEa97y3gixHn1e7TcHiTf
 Why did they obey?

Recent obedience examples
Don’t feel personally responsible (“just
following orders”)
 Respect for authority
 Awkward to break rules
 Do it in small steps

Reasons people obey