social influence – conformity and integroup relations lecture 14
Post on 21-Dec-2015
222 views
TRANSCRIPT
Social influence
• Social influence = change of judgments, opinions and attitudes under the impact of judgments, opinions and attitudes of other people
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
Two procedures
• I – first individual norms followed by creation of group norms
• II – first group norms followed by studies of individuals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I day II day III day IV day
esti
mat
ed m
ovem
ent
of li
ght
person 1person 2person 3
Creation of a group norm
After: Sherif & Sherif, 1969
Autokinetic effect
• Reversed procedure: – First creation of the group norm– Afterwards: subjects studied individually– Effect: persistance of the group norm
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
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
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
num
ber
of e
rror
s
control
pressure ofmajority
Results of Solomon Asch experiment
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
Which type of influence when?
• Ambiguous stimuli conversion – eg. Autokinetic effect (Sherif)
• Unambiguous stimuli compliance– eg. Line matching (Asch)
Reducing conformity
• Increasing self-confidence in own perceptions• Devil’s advocate or having a supporter• Size of the group
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
control
pressure ofmajoritysupporter
Role of a supporter in reducing compliance
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
Role of social support: credible and incredible supporter
00,10,20,3
0,40,50,60,7
0,80,9
1
no support
incrediblesupportercrediblesupporter
After: Allen i Levine, 1971
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
Instruction differentiating experimental conditions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
control
pressure ofmajorityother payoffconditions
Exp. Ross, Bierbrauer & Hoffman, 1976)
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)
Culture and conformity (obedience to the authority of the elders)
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
conformity
After: Garbarino & Bronfenbrenner, 1976
Eexperiment by Moscovici
• Task: colour perception, 36 blue slides • Conditions: 6 persons, including 2
confederates (position 1 and 4)
Experimental conditions:
• Consistent condition: green on all trials• Inconsistent condition: :
– „green” - 24 times– „blue” - 12 times
• Results: consistent minority inducedmore change
Results
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
licz
ba b
łędó
w
controlhigh consistencylow consistency
After: Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969)
Mechanisms of majority & minority influences
• Majority compliance without conversion (normative influence)
• Minority conversion without compliance (informational influence)
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
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
Stage I
• Private (without confederate)– write down the colour– rate the after-image
yellow purple
1 9
Feedback information
Ss informed that their response shared by :
81.8 % people 18,2% people
Subject in majority Subject in minority
The remaining percentage saw GREEN
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
Stage III
• With confederate• 15 trials• Privacy conditions: writing down the colour
+rating the after-image
Stage IV
• Private and without confederate• writing down the colour +rating the after-
image
• Results: more conversion in minority conditions
Experimental creation of obedience (Milgram, 1974)
• Teacher – pupil• Punishing errors• Voltage: 15-450 V• 26/40 subjects continued to the very end
Remote condition
100
80
60
50
40
20
10
Lekki Umiarkowany
Silny B. silny Intensywny
B.intensywny
Niebezp. 450V
„uczeń” wali w ścianę, potemmilknie
Uczeń waliw ścianę, protestując
Aż 65% badanychposłuchało, aplikując„uczniowi” śmiertelnądawkę prądu
% badanych
Siła szoku
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
Reducing obedience
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70pr
ocen
t os
ób
originalexperimentexperimenter notpresentanother subjectgiving orders
After: Milgram (1974)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
proc
ent
osób remote
voice-feedbackproximityproximity-touch
Reducing obedience – manipulating closeness of the victim
Milgram, 1963, 1965)
Social facilitation
• 1897 - Triplett – cyclists ride faster when in group than when alone
• Robert Zajonc (1965): The mere presence effect
Results
• Presence of others facilitates performance on easy tasks, impedes performance on complex tasks
• Subjects: people, cockroaches
Explanations
• Level of arousal (R. B. Zajonc)• Evaluation anxiety (N. B. Cottrell)• Others as distractors (G.S. Sanders, R.S.
Baron, D.L. Moore)
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)
Evaluation anxiety
Presence of others
Evaluation anxiety No anxiety
No effectarousal
Intensification of dominant reaction
Facilitation on easy task
Handicap on difficult task
Others as distractors
Distraction
Lowered performance Increased effort
Difficult task Easy task
Worse performance Better performance
Social loafing
• 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
Explanation
Group productivity
Potentialproductivity
Coordinationlosses
Motivationallosses
= - -
Social loafing results from:•Decrease in motivation
•Decrease in coordination
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
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
Types of leaders(Bales & Slater)
• Social-emotional leader– Cares about good atmosphere in a group
• Task leader– Imposes structure, organizes communication etc. .
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
Group productivity
Potential productivity
Coordinationlosses
Motivationallosses
= - -
Social-emotional leader
Task leader
Group polarization
• Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969): group opinions more polarized than individual opinions
• Direction of polarization depends on initial average group opinion
Group polarization
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
before after
dyskusji
atti
tude
De-Gaulle
US foreingpolicy
After: Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)
Group polarization effects
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
atti
tude
prejudiced unprejudiced
before discussionafter discussion
After: Meyers & Bishop, 1970
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
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