Example of Stimuli Used in Asch's Study
Participants agreed with the majority
approximately 37% of the time
“That we have found the tendency to conform in our society
so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning
young people are willing to call white black is a matter of
concern. It raises questions about our ways of education
and about the values that guide our conduct.”
--- Asch, 1955
Types of Social Influence
INFORMATIVE
(Ambiguous stimuli or task.
Other’s input is a source of
potentially valuable information.
Internalization is possible e.g.,
Sherif ’s Research)
NORMATIVE
(Clear, straightforward task, correct answer
is apparent. Conform to majority to fit in
or not stand out, influenced by peer
pressure. Public acceptance, not
internalization of beliefs e.g., Asch’s
Research)
Autokinetic Effect: A perceptual phenomenon where a rather small and stationary dot of light in a
dark environment (or one that lacks distinctive feature) appears to move. It is believed to happen
because the perception of movement is made relative to a point of reference. In the dark, no point
of reference is present. Consequently, the motion of a small point of light is not definable.
Sherif ’s Conformity Studies Using the
Autokinetic Effect
Movement in
inches
SUBJECT 1
SUBJECT 2
7
SUBJECT 3
6
5
4
3
2
1
ALONE
1
2
3
Minority Influence on the Majority
Influence of a deviate --- Key is consistency of opinion & avoidance of being viewed
as rigid)
Reactions to minority views: Surprise, anger, contempt, irritation, hostility, criticism
Research by Wilder (197)1:
4
People
2 People
2 People
~ Chameleon Effect ~
What is it?
To mimic the behavior of others
Why does it occur?
Perception – Behavior Link
William James (thinking and likelihood of behavior)
Aggression research of Berkowitz: “Ideomotor” action (viewing
violent stimuli automatically activates memory representations of
the perceived violent act that lead to aggressive thoughts/ideas,
leads viewer to behaving violently)
Study Hypotheses
• Perception of other’s behavior increases the tendency for
perceivers to act in a similar way
• This mimicry is non-conscious
• The initiation is not goal directed (and not dependent on the
nature of the interpersonal relationship)
• A causal relationship exist between the behavior of others
and the behavior of perceivers
Shortcomings of Past Research
• No baseline or control group
• No tests of the minimal conditions under which the matching of
behaviors occur (e.g., strangers vs. friends)
• Past work was correlational in nature
• No assessment of variability of behavior within participants (e.g., does
participant’s behavior change as a function of the different other’s behavior)
Main Findings
Study 1: Chameleon effect does occur --• Participants mimicked the behavior of others (i.e., smiling, rubbing
face, shaking foot)
• The findings are not due to “liking” as a potential mediator (no
difference in mimicry between smiling and non-smiling confederates
• Participants not aware of behavior of others
Issues/Questions:
Adequacy of the 1 minute baseline assessment
Conceptualizing the smiling and non-smiling confederates as a likability
manipulation
Main Findings (cont.)
Assumptions: Mimicry reflects the basic need to belong, to be accepted, to
not appear different, it offers validation (reflecting a common viewpoint)
Social glue principle
Study 2 Findings:
Mimicry has an adaptive function. It leads to greater interpersonal liking and
makes the interaction go more smoothly
Confederates did not behave friendlier (e.g., smiling, eye contact between
conditions)
Implications?
Cross-cultural interactions
Main Findings (cont.)
Study 3: Individual differences exist in the usage of mimicry.
Specifically, perspective taking and the degree to which people attend to the
behavior of others should lead to greater mimicking
Findings:
Individuals with high scores on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index
mimicked more than those low in this measure
No differences in the degree of mimicry existed based on scores on the
Empathy Concern Scale (as expected; it is an measure of the emotional
aspect of empathy )
Issues/Questions: 1) Items on the IRI seem to be cognitively-based questions
NOT a measure of attention or perspective taking (“I often have tender,
concerned feeling for people less fortunate than me,” I am often quite touched
by things that I see happen.” 2) Empathetic Concern Items? 3) Sample size and
use of median split (N = 28 and 22), 4) Reliability of IRI (low end)