Social Psychology
Lecture 13
Conformity and Social Influence
Jane Clarbour
Room: PS/B007
email: jc129
Overview
• Looking at a series of experiments that
studied the effects of social influence on
both individuals and small groups
• processes of social influence:
• Majority influence (conformity & compliance)
• Minority influence (innovation)
Objectives
By the end of this lecture, you should be able
to:
• Define what is meant by the 'fundamental
attribution error'
• Describe the two major mechanisms through which
groups influence their members
• Discuss why conformity is thought to result from
exposure to a majority influence
• Discuss the characteristics a minority should have in
order to exert influence over a majority
• Report criticisms of the dual-process model and
alternative explanations of minority influence
Social influence
• What is meant by social influence?
– the extent to which an individual’s
opinions, attitudes and judgments are
influenced by being exposed to the
views of others
(Van Avermaet, 2001)
Fundamental attributional error
The attribution error refers to the effect of
the situation over & above the effect of
personality
– Situational factors generally ignored
• Termed the ‘fundamental attributional error’
Norm formation
The development of group norms
SHERIF (1936)
• Experimental paradigm based on ‘perception
of motion’
– ‘autokinetic effect’ paradigm
• A stationary but flickering single light in dark
room
• optical illusion: appears to move – but doesn’t
actually move
Sherif’s experimental design
• Private viewing task
– Private estimate of distance light moved over 100
trials (written down)– Ss formed personal consensus
• Group viewing task
– Public judgement (state out loud how far moved) Ss
formed a group consensus
This effect influenced Ss later judgement when
subsequently asked to perform task again on their
own
Why people conform
• Major mechanisms of how groups influence
their members:
– Informational influence
• Value of other’s opinions
• Generally useful source of information
• Adaptive advantage
– Normative influence
• Need to be accepted by others
• Need to be approved of by others
• Fear of being disliked
Social influence (1950’s):
The Asch Conformity Experiments
• Ss shown a standard line
• This was then to be compared against 3 other
lines which varied in length from the standard
line by between ¼” and 13/4”
A
B
C
The Asch Conformity Experiments…
• Ss sits in groups varying from 7 – 9 people
• All asked to state which line is same as
standard line
– Only 1 subject (rest are confederates)
– Each confederate makes false judgment in turn
(out loud)
• Ss goes last in making judgment
• Control group (no confederates)
– Ss judgments made in private
Asch conformity experiment
RESULTS:
• Experimental group
– Many Ss conformed to confederates false
judgments on majority of trials
– Most caved in on a few trials
• Control group
– errors only about 2%
Changes in size of stimuli/group
• Asch increased the disparity in line
length
– Larger disparities:
• 28% of experimental Ss still made errors
• Only 2% in control
• Asch decreased size of majority group
– 1 confederate to 1 Ss
• Abolished the group effect
– Even though confederate still went first.
Increased sized of minority…
• Introduced a partner
– 1 confederate (immed.) prior to Ss gave
correct response
• Reduced majority effect to 13% of estimates
• Wrong minority of 1 (reverse of original
experiment)
– I confederate gives wrong answer first but
rest of group were Ss
• No majority effect
Variations of stimulus
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)
Studies of attitude
• “Free speech being a privilege rather than a
right, it is proper for a society to suspend free
speech when it feels threatened”
– 19% agreed with statement in private
– 58% agreed under pressure of group influence
Variations of stimulus
CRUTCHFIELD (1955)
• Statement presented to Army leaders:
“I doubt whether I would make a good leader”
– None agreed with statement in private
– 37% agreed under group pressure
BUT
– When Ss were presented with judgements again in private
most reverted to their pre-group answers
– No permanent attitude change as result of experiment
• So, more an effect of compliance than conformity
Critique of Asch experiments
PERRIN & SPENCER (1980)
Generalisability of Asch’s experiments?
– Failure to replicate ‘line’ experiments with
British engineering, maths and chemistry
students (6 confederates, 1 Ss)
• Only 1 out of 396 trials did a Ss join the
erroneous majority.
Stresses cultural rather than personality
factors in explaining conformity
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies
• Sherif (moving light)
– Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer
• Reasonable to consider other’s views
• Participants later adopted social norms
– Conformity leads to internalization
• Asch (parallel lines)
– Participants knew there was a correct answer
• Conformity does not lead to internalization
Suggests important differences between compliance
and conformity
Minority influence
• Minority influence exemplified in TV play &
film “Twelve Angry Men”
• 12 jurors have to decide over the guilt or
innocence of a young man charged with the
murder of his father.
– At outset of the play a single juror in the murder
trial favours acquittal, other 11 jurors favour
conviction
– By end of play unanimously ‘not guilty’
• The minority (of 1) has influenced a majority
jury
Minority influence and social change
• Most instances of minority influence or
innovation cannot be accounted for by the same
mechanisms that explain majority influence
(Moscovici, 1976)
– Minorities are few in number
– No normative control over the majority
– More likely to be ridiculed by the majority than taken
seriously
– Perceived as ‘weirdo’s.
• Seem to have access to the same informational and normative
means of control either explicitly or implicitly as a majority
How do minorities influence others?
• Minorities influence others through their
own behavioural style:
– Make their proposition clear at the outset
– Stick to their original proposition
– Withstand the majority influence
Behavioural Style
• Key factor in minority influence is
consistency of behavioural style
– Consistent:
• Across time & situation (diachronic
consistency)
• Across individuals (synchronic consistency)
– Strength of conviction
Assumptions of of minority influence
• Minority can create conflict
– Creates doubt and uncertainty
– Solution: cognitive change
• Minority can exploit majority’s dislike of
conflict
• Influence is reciprocal
– Every group member both influences and
is influenced, irrespective of status
‘Genetic’ model of social influence
(Moscovici, 1976)
• Emphasis of ‘genetic’ model on growth
and innovation as basic processes of
social life
• Social influence doesn’t just adapt people
to to a social system
– Continual production of system
– Continual change of system
So, people don’t merely conform to systems – they
actively participate in and change systems
Power and Influence
(Moscovici, 1976)
Confusion within earlier social influence
research between power and influence
• Power is the basis of social influence
– Those who are dependent conform to those with
power
• Influence is a process of submission to social
pressure
• Power and influence are alternatives
– Coercion when can’t influence
– If can influence, don’t need power
Summary of Moscovici’s theoretical framework
A consistent minority:
• Disrupts the established norm
– Produces doubt and uncertainty in majority
• Makes itself visible
– Focuses attention on itself
• Shows that there is an alternative point of view
• Demonstrates certainty, confidence & commitment to
the alternative point of view
• Does not compromise or move (flexible, not rigid)
• Implies the only solution is for the majority to accept
the minority view.
Differences between Asch and Moscovici
Asch and Moscovici viewed conformity differently:
• Asch:
– conformity as a process to reduce
cognitive uncertainty
• Moscovici:
– conformity as a process to reduce social
conflict (and people don’t like conflict)
• Agree to avoid social conflict (nervous,
anxious)
Experimental paradigm
Moscovici et al (1969)
• Responses to consistent minority influence
– Told female Ss that in colour perception
experiment
– Task was to judge the colour of a series of slides
that would vary in intensity of colour and name this
colour aloud when seated in a row of groups of 6.
– In each group there were 2 confederates
– (Control group of 6 naïve Ss).
Consistent minority influence
Gree
n
Confed 1
Gree
n
Confed 2
Blue
Subject 1
Subject 2
Blue
Subject 3
Blue
Subject 4
Blue
Percent of green responses given by
majority Ss
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control
Inconsistent
Minority Influence
Consistent
Variations of theme:
• Inconsistent minority
– Sometimes said green in a random order,
regardless of hue of the blue slide
• Discrimination task
– Ss had to also later complete 2nd task in
private judging varied colour of slide from
green-blue
• 3 blue and 3 green
• 10 blue/green
– Slides presented randomly
RESULTS (of subsequent experiments)
• Inconsistent minority
– 0nly 1.25% said green
• Also, changed order of confederates to being
placed 1st and 4th
– No effect
• Discrimination task
– Ss who publicly kept to blue, privately stated sig
more ambiguous blue/green slides as green
• So, a public vs. private distinction
The impact of the consistent minority was greater at the
perceptual than at the public, verbal level
Comparison of minority and majority influence
Moscovici & Lage (1976)
Blue-green paradigm, 6 conditions
•
Controls respond to stimuli in writing
–
•
(no group influence)
Consistent minority
–
•
(Same as before: 2 confederates, 4 Ss)
Inconsistent minority
–
•
(Same as before: 2 confederates, 4 Ss)
Consistent minority of 1
–
•
(who went first: 1 confederate, 3 Ss)
Unanimous consistent majority
–
•
(who went first: 3 confederates, 1 Ss)
Non-unanimous consistent majority
–
(4 confederates, 2 Ss, varied order)
Replication of Asch’s ‘lines’ conformity
exps using blue/green paradigm
Condition
influenced
Ss
Control
6%
Consistent minority of 1
15 %
Consistent minority of 2
42.5 %
Inconsistent minority of 2
11 %
Unanimous majority*
50 %
Non-unanimous majority
35 %
But, when tested in private, only the consistent minority
of 2 influenced change of belief
Majority influence revisited
• Movement to majority position is due to:
– The common belief that there is truth in numbers
(informational influence)
– Due to the concern for being accepted by those
numbers (normative influence)
– Underlying this social influence is a generally
positive judgment of and attraction toward to
majority by those being influenced (Wood et al, 1994)
Conformity studies of majority influence
• In conformity studies of majority influence (all
others in group are opposed to the subject):
– Normative pressures lead to public influence
• Opinion uniformity is valued because it provides group
members with social support for, and validation of their
views (Festinger, 1954)
• Dissenters are disliked because they impede group goals
(Levine, 1989)
– Informational pressures lead to public and private
influence
• So, do minorities have less social influence?
• Or, is it because minorities tend to be disliked that people
do not wish to conform in public?
Minority vs. majority influences
Depth of processing (Moscovici & Lage, 1976)
• Minority influence = deep
– A minority, without obtaining substantial overt
acceptance of its point of view can influence the
basis of other people’s judgements.
• Majority influence = shallow
– A majority, if unanimous, can make almost all
accept its point of view without affecting the
underlying perceptual-cognitive system.
Theory of minority conversion
Moscovici (1980)
• Majorities produce public compliance
rather than conversion
– Direct, immediate, temporary effect of
social influence
• Minorities challenge beliefs and produce
private conversion
– Indirect, delayed, private effect of social
influence
Dual Process Model
• Majorities induce conformity by means of a
public comparison process
– Without giving attention or thought to the issue
itself
• (no conversion of attitude)
• Minorities induce conformity by means of a
private validation process
– Directed cognitive activity aimed at understanding
why the minority consistently holds on to its
opinion
– Attention diverted to the object, a latent process of
conversion as Ss begin to look at the object as the
minority does
• (conversion of attitude)
Evaluation of dual-process model
WOOD et al. (1994)
• Meta-analysis of 97 studies of minority
influence
– 3 kinds of influence were reviewed:
• Public judgment change (c.f. compliance)
• Private change on issues directly related to the appeal
(c.f. conversion)
• Private change on issues indirectly related to the appeal
(i.e. changes in after-image colour effects, or indirectly
related beliefs)
Wood et al (1994)
• Found that patterns of influence were
consistent with Moscovici’s dualprocess model
– Minorities < change than majorities on
direct measures of influences
– Minorities > influence on indirect private
measures
• But offered different interpretation of
findings:
Wood et al’s interpretation of
results
• Social influence occurs not because of different
cognitive processes
• But because Ss don’t want to align themselves with
deviant social groups
– i.e. studies showed less direct private agreement when they
defined the minority source as a member of a minority social
group (e.g. homosexual student, or radical feminist)
Conclusions
• Moscovici raised questions about nature of
social influence
– Differences in deep/shallow processing between
minority and majority social influences
• Wood et al concluded
– Effects of social influence may not be related to
different levels of processing but may be more
related to social stigma of deviant minorities