The typical outcome of social influence is that our beliefs and behaviors become more similar to those of others around us. At times, this change occurs in a spontaneous and automatic sense, without any obvious intent of one person to change the other.
Perhaps you learned to like jazz or rap music because your roommate was playing a lot of it.
The researchers interpreted this as a kind of spontaneous conformity—a tendency to follow the behavior of others, often entirely out of our awareness. Perhaps you have noticed in your own behavior a type of very subtle conformity—the tendency to imitate other people who are around you. Have you ever found yourself talking, smiling, or frowning in the same way that a friend does?
Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh investigated whether the tendency to imitate others would occur even for strangers, and even in very short periods of time. In their first experiment, students worked on a task with another student, who was actually an experimental confederate. The two worked together to discuss photographs taken from current magazines.
While they were working together, the confederate engaged in some unusual behaviors to see if the research participant would mimic them. Specifically, the confederate either rubbed his or her face or shook his or her foot. It turned out that the students did mimic the behavior of the confederate, by themselves either rubbing their own faces or shaking their own feet.
The many varieties of conformity
And when the experimenters asked the participants if they had noticed anything unusual about the behavior of the other person during the experiment, none of them indicated awareness of any face rubbing or foot shaking. It is said that imitation is a form of flattery, and we might therefore expect that we would like people who imitate us. Indeed, in a second experiment, Chartrand and Bargh found exactly this.
Rather than creating the behavior to be mimicked, in this study the confederate imitated the behaviors of the participant. While the participant and the confederate discussed the magazine photos, the confederate mirrored the posture, movements, and mannerisms displayed by the participant. As you can see in Figure 6. Participants who had been mimicked indicated that they liked the test who had imitated them more and that the interaction with that person had gone more smoothly, in comparison with participants who had not been mimicked.
Data are from Chartrand and Bargh Imitation is an important part of social interaction. We easily and frequently mimic others without being aware that we are doing so. In these cases, the influence is obvious. We know we are being influenced and we How attempt—sometimes successfully, and sometimes less so—to counteract the pressure. Influence also sometimes occurs because we believe that other people have valid knowledge about an opinion or issue, and we use that information to help us make good decisions.
For example, if you take a flight and land at an unfamiliar airport you may follow the flow of other passengers who disembarked before you. In this case your assumption might be that they know where they are going and that following them will likely lead you to the baggage carousel. Informational social influence is the change in opinions or behavior that occurs when we conform to people who we believe have accurate information.
We base our beliefs on those presented to us by reporters, scientists, doctors, and lawyers because we believe they have more expertise in certain fields than we have. Informational social influence le to real, long-lasting changes in beliefs. The result of conformity due to informational social influence is normally private acceptance : real change in opinions on the conformity of the individual.
C: the asch experiment- the power of peer pressure
We believe that choosing the jacket was the right thing to do and that the crowd will lead us to the baggage carousel. When we start smoking cigarettes or buy shoes that we cannot really afford in order to impress others, we do these things not so much because we think they are the right things to do but rather because we want to be liked. We fall prey to normative social influence when we express opinions or behave in ways that help us to be accepted or that keep us from being isolated or rejected by others.
When we engage in conformity due to normative social influence we conform to social norms — socially accepted beliefs about what we do or should do in particular social contexts Cialdini, ; Sherif, ; Sumner, In contrast to informational social influence, in which the attitudes or opinions of the individual change to match that of the influencers, the outcome of normative social influence often represents public compliance rather than private acceptance. Conformity may appear in our public behavior even though we may believe something completely different in private. We may obey the speed limit or wear a uniform to our job behavior to conform to social norms and requirements, even though we may not necessarily believe that it is appropriate to do so opinion.
Normative social influence: conforming to be liked and to avoid rejection
We may use drugs with our friends without really wanting to, and without believing it is really right, because our friends are all using drugs. However, behaviors that are originally performed out of a desire to be accepted normative social influence may frequently produce changes in beliefs to match them, and the result becomes private acceptance. Perhaps you know someone who started smoking to please his friends but soon convinced himself that it was an acceptable thing to do.
Although in some cases conformity may be purely informational or purely normative, in most cases the goals of being accurate and being accepted go hand-in-hand, and therefore informational and normative social influence often occur at the same time.
When soldiers obey their commanding officers, they probably do it both because others are conformity it normative conformity and because they think it is the right thing to do informational conformity. And when you start working at a new job you may test the behavior of your new colleagues because you want them to like you as well as because you assume they know how things should be done.
It has been argued that the distinction between informational and normative conformity is more apparent than real and that it may not be possible to fully differentiate them Turner, Although conformity occurs whenever group members change their opinions or behaviors as a result of their perceptions of others, we can divide such influence into two types. Majority influence occurs when the beliefs held by the larger of individuals in the current social group prevail.
In contrast, minority influence occurs when the beliefs held by the smaller of individuals in the current social group prevail. Not surprisingly, majority influence is more common, and we will consider it first. In How series of important studies on conformity, Muzafer Sherif used a perceptual phenomenon known as the autokinetic effect to study the outcomes of conformity on the development of group norms.
The autokinetic effect is caused by the rapid, small movements of our eyes that occur as we view objects and that allow us to focus on stimuli in our environment. However, when individuals are placed in a dark room that contains only a single small, stationary pinpoint of light, these eye movements produce an unusual effect for the perceiver—they make the point of light appear to move. Sherif took advantage of this natural effect to study how group norms develop in ambiguous situations.
In his studies, college students were placed in a dark room with the point of light and were asked to indicate, each time the light was turned on, how much it appeared to move. Some participants first made their judgments alone. Sherif also found that when individuals who initially had made very different estimates were then placed in groups along with one or two other individuals, and in which all the group members gave their responses on each trial aloud each time in a different random orderthe initial differences in judgments among the participants began to disappear, such that the group members eventually made very similar judgments.
You can see that this pattern of change, which is shown in Figure 6. The participants in the studies by Muzafer Sherif initially had different beliefs about the degree to which a point of light appeared to be moving. You can see these differences as expressed on Day 1. However, as they shared their beliefs with other group members over several days, a common group norm developed.
Shown here are the estimates made by a group of three participants who met together on four different days. Furthermore, the new group norms continued to influence judgments when the individuals were again tested alone, indicating that Sherif had created private acceptance. The participants did not revert back to their initial opinions, even though they were quite free to do so; rather, they stayed with the new group norms.
How these conformity effects appear to have occurred entirely out of the awareness of most participants. Sherif reported that the majority of the participants indicated after the experiment was over that their judgments had not been influenced by the judgments made by the other group members. Sherif also found that the norms that were developed in groups could continue over time. Asch conducted studies in which, in complete contrast to the autokinetic effect experiments of Sherif, the correct answers to the judgments were entirely obvious. In these studies, the research participants were male college students who were told that they were to be participating in a test of visual abilities.
The men were seated in a test semicircle in front of a board that displayed the visual stimuli that they were going to judge. The men were told that there would be 18 trials during the experiment, and on each trial they would see two cards. The standard card had a single line that was to be judged. And the test card had three lines that varied in conformity between about 2 and 10 inches:. As you can see from the Asch card sample above, there is no question that correct answer is Line 1.
Conduct your own conformity test
In fact, Asch found that people made virtually no errors on the task when they made their judgments alone. On each trial, each person answered out loud, beginning with one end of the semicircle and moving to the other end. Although the participant did not know it, the other group members were not true participants but experimental confederates who gave predetermined answers on each trial. Because the participant was seated next to last in the row, he always made his judgment after most of the other group members made theirs.
Although on the first two trials the confederates each gave the correct answer, on the third trial, and on 11 of the subsequent trials, they all had been instructed to give the same incorrect answer. For instance, even though the correct answer was Line 1, they would all say it was Line 2. This is indeed evidence for the power of normative social influence because the research participants were giving clearly incorrect answers out loud.
The research that we have discussed to this point involves conformity in which the opinions and behaviors of individuals become more similar to the opinions and behaviors of the majority of the people in the group—majority influence. But we do not always blindly conform to the beliefs of the majority. Although more unusual, there are nevertheless cases in which a smaller of individuals are able to influence the opinions or behaviors of the group—this is minority influence.