1. Analyze the effects of different methods of social influence on offender behavior during rehabilitation.
2. Examine how conformity and obedience may occur during offender rehabilitation.
3. Examine the effects of group interactions on offender behavior and decision making.
4. Describe how group influences affect social relationships as offenders make progress through support services.
5. Describe the factors that influence conformity
6. Describe the six basic principles of compliance and how they function
7. Analyze the role of authority in inducing obedience
8. Describe several forms of unintentional social influence
9. What are some Reasons for Nonconformity: Why We Sometimes Choose “Not to Go Along”
10. What are some reasons for conformity: Why we sometimes choose “to get along”
8.1: Conformity: How Groups—and Norms—Influence Our Behavior
Objective
1. Describe the factors that influence conformity
· During an exam, another student’s cell phone begins to ring loudly. What does this person do?
· You are driving on a street when you see and hear an ambulance approaching from behind. What do you do?
· In a supermarket, a new checkout line suddenly opens, right next to a checkout with a long line of shoppers. Who gets to go first in that new line?
In each of these situations, the people involved could, potentially, behave in many different ways. But probably, you can predict with great certainty what most will do. The student with the loud cell phone will silence it quickly. When you hear an ambulance, you will pull over to the right and perhaps stop completely until it passes. The checkout line is a little trickier. People near the front of the long checkout line should get to be first in the new line—but this might not happen. Someone from the back of the long line might beat them to it. In contexts where norms are clearer, greater conformity by most people can be expected compared to contexts like this where norms are less clear about what action is the “correct” one.
The fact that we can predict others’ behavior (and our own) with confidence in these and many other situations illustrates the powerful and general effects of pressures toward conformity—doing what we are expected to do in a given situation. Conformity, in other words, refers to pressures to behave in ways consistent with rules indicating how we should, or ought to, behave. These rules—whether subtle or obvious—are known as social norms, and they can exert powerful effects on our behavior. The uncertainty you might experience in the checkout line situation stems from the fact that the norms in that situation are not very clear: When a new checkout opens, should people in the front or the back of the line should go first?
In some instances, social norms are stated explicitly and are quite detailed. For instance, many governments function through written constitutions and laws; baseball and other games have very specific rules; and signs in many public places (e.g., along highways, in parks, at airports) describe expected behavior in considerable detail (e.g., Speed Limit 60 mph; Keep Off the Grass; No Parking). In other situations, norms may be rather implicit, and in fact, may have developed in a totally informal manner. For instance, we all recognize such unstated rules as “don’t talk loudly on your cell phone in locations where this will intrude on other people,” and “Try to look your best when going on a job interview.” Regardless of whether social norms are explicit or implicit, formal or informal, though, one fact is clear: Most people follow them most of the time. For instance, virtually everyone regardless of personal political beliefs stands when the national anthem of their country is played at sports events or other public gatherings. Similarly, few people visit restaurants without leaving a tip for the server. In fact, so powerful is this informal social norm that most people leave a tip of around 15 percent or more regardless of the quality of the service they have received ( Azar, 2007 ).
At first glance, this strong tendency toward conformity—toward going along with society’s or a group’s expectations about how we should behave in various situations—may seem objectionable. After all, it does place restrictions on personal freedom. Actually, though, there is a strong basis for so much conformity: Without it, we would quickly find ourselves facing utter chaos. Imagine what would happen outside movie theaters, stadiums, or at supermarket checkout counters if people did not obey the norm “Form a line and wait your turn.” In some countries, this norm does not exist and instead it is “Push your way to the front,” which could make people used to the “form a line” norm indignant. And consider the danger to both drivers and pedestrians if there were no clear and widely followed traffic regulations. In some countries these are lacking or routinely ignored. Basically, when people don’t follow existing social norms, their actions are unpredictable—and sometimes, that can be dangerous (see Figure 8.2 ).
Another reason people conform is, simply, to “look good” to others—to indicate that they are “good citizens,” and are following the rules—whatever these are in a specific time and place. But again, be honest: How much do you conform? Do you usually do what you are “supposed” to do, or do you, challenge the rules and follow your own desires? Whatever your answer, please see the following special section to learn what social psychologists have discovered about this issue.
Given the importance and frequency of conformity, it is surprising that it received relatively little attention in social psychology until the 1950s. At that time, Solomon Asch (1951) , whose research on impression formation we considered in Chapter 3 , carried out a series of experiments on conformity that yielded dramatic results.
8.1.1: Social Pressure: The Irresistible Force?
Suppose that just before an important math exam, you discover that your answer to a homework problem—a problem of the type that will be on the test—is different from that obtained by one of your friends. How would you react? Probably with some concern. Now imagine that you learn that a second person’s answer, too, is different from yours. To make matters worse, it agrees with the answer reported by the first person. How would you feel now? The chances are good that your anxiety will increase. Next, you discover that a third person agrees with the other two. At this point, you know that you are in big trouble. Which answer should you accept? Yours or the one obtained by these three other people?
Life is filled with such dilemmas—instances in which we discover that our own judgments, actions, or conclusions are different from those reached by other people.
Figure 8.2 Conformity: It Makes Life More Predictable
When norms telling people how to behave don’t exist—or are largely ignored—chaos can develop. Countries in which traffic regulations are taken lightly provide a clear illustration of this fact—and of why conformity can sometimes be very useful.
What do we do in such situations? Important insights into our behavior were provided by studies conducted by Solomon Asch (1951 , 1955 ).
Figure 8.4 The Illusion That We Are Less Influenced by Conformity Than Others
Participants reported that they were less influenced by conformity to a group’s judgments than was another person (a stranger). In fact, they actually conformed as much as this person did—whose ratings on various issues were designed to conform precisely the same as each participant. Still, despite this objective fact, they perceived the other person as showing more conformity.
Description
Asch created a compelling social dilemma for his participants whose task was ostensibly to simply respond to a series of perceptual problems such as the one in Figure 8.3 . On each of the problems, participants were to indicate which of three comparison lines matched a standard line in length. Several other people (usually six to eight) were also present during the session, but unknown to the real participant, all were assistants of the experimenter. On certain occasions known as critical trials (12 out of the 18 problems) the accomplices offered answers that were clearly wrong: They unanimously chose the wrong line as a match for the standard line. Moreover, they stated their answers before the real participants responded. Thus, on these critical trials, the people in Asch’s study faced precisely the type of dilemma described earlier. Should they go along with the other individuals present or stick to their own judgments? The judgments seemed to be very simple ones, so the fact that other people agreed on an answer different from the one the participants preferred was truly puzzling. Results were clear: A large majority of the participants in Asch’s research chose conformity. Across several different studies, fully 76 percent of those tested went along with the group’s false answers at least once; and overall, they voiced agreement with these errors 37 percent of the time. In contrast, only 5 percent of the participants in a control group, who responded to the same problems alone, made such errors.
Of course, there were large individual differences in this respect. Almost 25 percent of the participants never yielded to the group pressure. (We’ll have more to say about such people soon.) At the other extreme, some individuals went along with the majority nearly all the time. When Asch questioned them, some of these people stated: “I am wrong, they are right”; they had little confidence in their own judgments. Most, however, said they felt that the other people present were suffering from an optical illusion or were merely sheep following the responses of the first person. Yet, when it was their turn, these people, too, went along with the group. They knew that the others were wrong (or at least, probably wrong), but they couldn’t bring themselves to publicly disagree with them.
In further studies, Asch (1959 , 1956 ) investigated the effects of shattering the group’s unanimity by having one of the accomplices break with the others. In one study, this person gave the correct answer, becoming an “ally” of the real participant; in another study, he chose an answer in between the one given by the group and the correct one; and in a third, he chose the answer that was even more incorrect than that chosen by the majority. In the latter two conditions, in other words, he broke from the group but still disagreed with the real participant. Results indicated that conformity was reduced under all three conditions. However, somewhat surprisingly, this reduction was greatest when the dissenting assistant expressed views even more extreme (and wrong) than the majority. Together, these findings suggest that it is the unanimity of the group that is crucial; once it is broken, no matter how, resisting group pressure becomes much easier.
There’s one more aspect of Asch’s research that is important to mention. In later studies, he repeated his basic procedure, but with one important change: Instead of stating their answers out loud, participants wrote them down on a piece of paper. (See special feature “What Research Tells Us About . . . How Much We Really Conform”)
What Research Tells Us about… How Much We Really Conform
For many of us, the term “conformity” has a negative sound: Others may go along with the crowd but we don’t like to think of ourselves as doing so. We are independent spirits and ignore norms whenever we wish. But is this true? Despite independence being a strong American value ( Markus & Kitayama, 1991 ), evidence gathered by social psychologists suggests that perhaps, we think we are more independent than we really are.
In fact, conformity is a fact of social life. We tend to wear the same styles of clothing as our friends, listen to the same kinds of music, see the same movies, read the same books and visit many of the same websites on the internet. Why? Because overall, we feel much more comfortable when we are similar to others we value than when we are different from them. So, contrary to our beliefs about ourselves, we often conform to a greater degree than we think. In other words, although we tend to see ourselves as standing out from crowd, this may be a self-enhancing illusion. Evidence pointing to this conclusion is provided by many classic experiments, several of which we’ll review. In these studies, people who are exposed to the actions of others (and the implicit norms these establish) often do go along with these rules—even when they deny doing so.
Evidence for the fact that people believe they are less susceptible to conformity pressure than other people is provided by research conducted by Pronin, Berger, and Molouki (2007) . They reasoned that people underestimate the impact of social influence on their own actions because in trying to understand these actions, people tend to focus on internal information rather than on their overt actions. As in the actor–observer difference (discussed in Chapter 3 ), we each know much more about our own thoughts and feelings than we do about the thoughts and feelings of others, so when we estimate how much oneself and others are influenced by conformity pressure, we tend to conclude that it is less important in shaping our actions than those of other people. For instance, we “know” that we choose to dress in popular styles because we like them—not because others are wearing them. When making the same judgment about other people, though, we assume that they are blindly following fashion, without necessarily liking it. Pronin and colleagues call this the introspection illusion , to refer to the fact that often, conformity occurs nonconsciously, and so escapes our introspection (or notice).
To test this reasoning, they conducted several studies. In one, participants read a series of recommendations about student life and learned that these recommendations had been endorsed or not endorsed by a group of fellow students. They then voted on each proposal themselves, indicating whether they supported it or did not support it. This provided a measure of their conformity to the panel’s recommendations. Students then rated the extent to which they believed the panel’s recommendations had influenced their own behavior, and also the behavior (i.e., voting) of another student, whose answers they were shown. The stranger agreed with the panel on precisely the same number of recommendations as did the students, so they actually showed equal conformity. But when they rated how much they and the other person had conformed, results were clear: Participants in the study rated the other person as being more influenced than they themselves were (see Figure 8.4 ). In contrast, they viewed themselves as being more influenced than the other person by the contents of each proposal rather than the panel’s recommendations.
In short, it appears that although we show conformity in many contexts—and for good reason—we underestimate the extent to which others’ actions influence us. We should add that this is true particularly in individualistic cultures such as the United States; in such cultures, people prefer to think of themselves as unique people who set their own course through life. But in more collectivist societies, such as Japan, conforming has no negative implications attached to it, and as a result, people may be more willing to admit that they conform, because doing so is seen as a good thing.
Figure 8.3 Asch’s Line Judgment Task
Participants in Asch’s research were asked to report their judgments on problems such as this one. Their task was to indicate which of the comparison lines (1, 2, or 3) best matched the standard line in length. To study conformity, he had participants make these judgments out loud, only after hearing the answers of several other people—all of whom were Asch’s assistants. On certain critical trials the assistants all gave wrong answers. This exposed participants to strong pressures toward conformity.
As you might guess, conformity dropped sharply because the participants didn’t have to display the fact that they disagreed to the other people present. This finding points to the importance of distinguishing between public conformity—doing or saying what others around us say or do, and private acceptance—actually coming to feel or think as others do. Often, it appears, we follow social norms overtly, but don’t actually change our private views ( Maass & Clark, 1984 ). This distinction between public conformity and private acceptance is an important one, and we’ll refer to it at several points in this book.
8.1.2: How Social Norms Emerge
A clear illustration of private acceptance of social influence was provided many years ago by another founder of social psychology— Muzafer Sherif (1937) . Sherif was interested in several questions, but among these, two were most important: (1) How do norms develop in social groups? (2) How strong is their influence on behavior once those norms emerge? To examine these issues, he used a very interesting situation. When placed in completely dark room and exposed to a single, stationary point of light, most people perceive the light as moving about. This is because in the dark room, there are no clear cues to distance or location. The perceived movement of the point of light is known as the autokinetic phenomenon .
Sherif (1937) realized that he could use this situation to study the emergence of social norms. This is so because there is considerable ambiguity about how much the light is moving and different people perceive it as moving different distances. Thus, when placed in this setting with several others and asked to report how much they perceive the light to be moving, they influence one another and soon converge on a particular amount of movement; that agreement, in a sense, constitutes a group norm. If the same individuals are then placed in the situation alone, they continue to give estimates of the light’s movement consistent with the group norm, so clearly, the effect of such norms once formed can persist. This suggests that these effects reflect changes in what participants actually believe—private acceptance or commitment; after all, they continue to be influenced by the group norm even if they are no longer in the group!
Sherif’s findings help explain why social norms develop in many situations—especially ambiguous ones. We have a strong desire to be “correct”—to behave in an appropriate manner—and behaving consistent with social norms help us attain that goal. This is one key foundation of social influence; another is the desire to be accepted by others and liked by them. Together, these two factors virtually assure that social influence is a powerful force—one that can often strongly affect our behavior.
Asch’s research was the catalyst for much research in social psychology, as many others sought to determine the processes underlying conformity and to identify factors that influence it (e.g., Crutchfield, 1955 ; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 ). Indeed, such research is continuing today, and is adding to our understanding of the factors that affect this crucial form of social influence (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996 ; Lonnqvist, Leikas, Paunonen, Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006 ).
8.1.3: Factors Affecting Conformity
Asch’s research demonstrated the existence of powerful pressures toward conformity, but even a moment’s reflection suggests that conformity does not occur to the same degree in all settings. Why? In other words, what factors determine the extent to which individuals yield to conformity pressure or resist it? Research findings suggest that many factors play a role; here, we’ll examine those that appear to be most important.
Cohesiveness and Conformity: Being Influenced by Those We Like
One factor that strongly influences our tendency to conform—to go along with whatever norms are operating in a given situation—is cohesiveness —the extent to which we are attracted to a particular social group and want to belong to it ( Turner, 1991 ). The greater cohesiveness is the more we tend to follow the norms (i.e., rules) of the group. This is hardly surprising: The more we value being a member of a group and want to be accepted by the other members, the more we want to avoid doing anything that will separate us from them. So, prestigious fraternities and sororities can often extract very high levels of conformity from would-be members who are very eager to join these highly selective groups. Similarly, acting and looking like others is often a good way to win their approval. So, in very basic terms, the more we like other people and want to belong to the same group as they do, and the more we are uncertain of winning their acceptance, the more we tend to conform ( Crandall, 1988 ; Latané & L’Herrou, 1996 ; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995 ). In other words, cohesiveness and the desire to be accepted can be viewed as factors that intensify the tendency to conform (see Figure 8.5 ).
Conformity and Group Size: Why More Exerts Greater Social Pressure
Another factor that produces conformity is the size of the group that is exerting influence. Asch (1956) and other early researchers ( Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley, 1968 ) found that conformity increases with group size, but only up to about three or four members; beyond that point, it appears to level off. However, later research has found that conformity tends to increase with group size up to eight group members and beyond (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996 ). In short, the larger the group—the greater the number of people who behave in some specific way—the greater our tendency to conform, and “do as they do.”
Conformity and Status Within a Group
In many contexts, group members differ with respect to status, and one important source of such differences is seniority: Senior members feel less pressure to conform. Junior members of the group, in contrast, experience strong pressures to go along; after all, their position is not assured and one way of gaining status is to conform to the group’s established norms or rules. Evidence for such effects has been reported by Jetten, Hornsey, and Adarves-Yorno (2006) . These researchers found that, for instance, seniors at a university rated themselves lower in a measure of conformity (e.g., “I am easily influenced by other students”) than sophomores and juniors. Moreover, senior (high-status) persons viewed others as more conforming than themselves. Indeed, the researchers found similar effects among social psychology professors: Those who were junior (they had few years as a professor) reported a stronger tendency to conform than those who were more senior. Together, these studies suggest that although pressures to conform are strong in many settings, high status gives people an “out”—while others have to conform, they do not.
Figure 8.5 Cohesiveness: A Magnifier of Conformity Pressure
The more strongly we are attracted to a group to which we belong or would like to belong, the more likely we are to conform to the norms of this group, especially if we feel less uncertain about our acceptance by the group. For instance, “pledges” hoping to join popular sororities or fraternities tend to show high levels of conformity to the norms of these groups.
Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norms: How Norms Affect Behavior
Social norms, as we have already seen, can be formal or informal in nature—as different as rules printed on large signs and informal guidelines such as “Don’t leave your shopping cart in the middle of the parking lot outside a supermarket.” This is not the only way in which norms differ, however. Another important distinction is that between descriptive norms and injunctive norms ( Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991 ; Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993 ). Descriptive norms are ones that simply describe what most people do in a given situation. They influence behavior by informing us about what is generally seen as effective or appropriate in that situation. In contrast, injunctive norms specify how people ought to be behave—what is approved or disapproved behavior in a given situation. For instance, there is a strong injunctive norm against cheating on exams—such behavior is considered to be ethically wrong. The fact that some students disobey this norm does not change the moral expectation that they should obey it.
Both kinds of norms can exert strong effects upon our behavior (e.g., Brown, 1998 ). But when, precisely, are such norms most likely to be obeyed? One answer is provided by normative focus theory ( Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990 ). This theory suggests that norms will influence behavior only to the extent that they are salient (i.e., relevant, significant) to the people involved at the time the behavior occurs. In other words, people will obey injunctive norms only when they think about them and see them as applying to themselves and their actions. This prediction has been verified in many different studies ( Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993 ; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000 ), so it seems to be a general principle that even injunctive norms—which can be very powerful—influence our actions mainly when we recognize them and believe that they apply to us personally. This is one reason why people sometimes ignore even clear and strong injunctive norms. One example of ignoring injunctive norms is provided by people who own very expensive cars and park them so that they take up two spots. Clearly, by doing so, they are violating the strong injunctive norm indicating that each driver should occupy only one spot (see Figure 8.6 ).
Figure 8.6 Ignoring Injunctive Norms: Doing What We Want Instead of What We Are Supposed to Do
People who own very expensive cars often try to protect them by taking up two parking spots. This violates the strong injunctive norm indicating that we should park between the lines of a single spot.
8.1.4: Social Foundations of Conformity: Why We Often Choose to “Go Along”
As we have just seen, several factors determine whether and to what extent conformity occurs. Yet, this does not alter the essential point: Conformity is a basic fact of social life. Most people conform to the norms of their groups most of the time. Why is this so? Why do people often choose to go along with these social rules instead of resisting them? The answer seems to involve two powerful motives possessed by all human beings: the desire to be liked or accepted by others and the desire to be right—to have accurate understanding of the social world ( Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 ; Insko, 1985 )—plus cognitive processes that lead us to view conformity as fully justified after it has occurred (e.g., Buehler & Griffin, 1994 ).
Normative Social Influence: The Desire to Be Liked
How can we get others to like us? This is one of the eternal puzzles of social life and many tactics can prove effective in this regard. One of the most successful of these is to appear to be as similar to others as possible. From our earliest days, we learn that agreeing with the people around us, and behaving as they do, causes them to like us. Parents, teachers, friends, and others heap praise and approval on us for showing such similarity (recall our discussion of attitude formation in Chapter 5 ). One important reason we conform, therefore, is this: We have learned that doing so can help us win the approval and acceptance we crave. This source of conformity is known as normative social influence , since it involves altering our behavior to meet others’ expectations.
The Desire to Be Right: Informational Social Influence
If you want to know your weight, you can step onto a scale. If you want to know the dimensions of a room, you can measure them directly. But how can you establish the accuracy of your own political or social views, or decide which hairstyle suits you best? There are no simple physical tests or measuring devices for answering these questions. Yet we want to be correct about such matters, too. The solution to this dilemma is obvious: To answer such questions, we refer to other people. We use their opinions and actions as guides for our own. Such reliance on others, in turn, is often a powerful source of the tendency to conform. Other people’s actions and opinions define social reality for us, and we use them as a guide for our own actions and opinions. This basis for conformity is known as informational social influence , since it is based on our tendency to depend on others as a source of information about many aspects of the social world.
Research evidence suggests that because our motivation to be correct or accurate is very strong, informational social influence is a powerful source of conformity. However, as you might expect, this is more likely to be true in situations where we are highly uncertain about what is “correct” or “accurate” than in situations where we have more confidence in our own ability to make such decisions ( Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996 ). Of course, this depends on “who we are” and whose norms are salient. We won’t think out-groups are “correct” as much as in-groups ( Turner, 1991 ).
8.1.5: The Downside of Conformity
Earlier, we noted that the tendency to conform—to obey social norms—can produce positive effects. The fact that most people comply with most social norms most of the time introduces a large measure of predictability into social relations: We know how we and others are expected to behave, and can proceed on the assumption that these expectations will be met. Other motorists will drive on the correct side of the street (whatever that is in one’s own society), and stop for red lights; people waiting for service in a store will form a line and wait their turn. But as we have already noted, there is definitely a downside to conformity, too. In fact, recent research by social psychologists suggests that pressures to conform, and our tendency to surrender to such pressures, can sometimes result in very harmful effects. In fact, we’ll now discuss what is perhaps the most dramatic research illustrating such effects—a famous study by Philip Zimbardo, which showed, among other things, the powerful impact of norms concerning various social roles.
Do good people ever do bad things? The answer, of course, is “Yes.” History is filled with atrocities performed by people who, most of the time, were good neighbors, parents, and friends, and who often showed kindness and concern for others in their daily lives. Yet, under some conditions, they seem to surrender all these positive qualities and engage in actions that most of us would find inexcusable. The key question for social psychologists is: Why? What makes good people turn bad—at least sometimes? There is no single answer, and later in this chapter, we’ll discuss obedience—a form of social influence that sometimes induces good people to do bad things. But now, we’ll focus on the answer provided by one very famous study in social psychology, Zimbardo’s prison study. Here’s how this famous study took place.
Imagine that one Sunday afternoon you hear a loud knock on your door. When you go to answer, you find yourself face to face with several police officers. Without any explanation, they arrest you and take you downtown to be photographed, fingerprinted, and “booked.” (Participants did know that they had volunteered to take part in social psychological research, but still, these events were still surprising for many of them.) Next, you are blindfolded and driven to a prison whose location you can only guess. Once there, you are stripped of all your clothes and are forced to dress in an uncomfortable, loose-fitting gown and a tight nylon cap. All of your personal possessions are removed and you are given an I.D. number instead of a name. Then you are locked in an empty cell containing only the bare necessities. All guards in the prison wear identical uniforms and reflecting sunglasses. And they carry clubs, whistles, and other signs of their authority.
As a prisoner, you are expected to obey a long set of rules under threat of severe punishment. You must remain silent during rest periods and after lights are turned out each night. You must address other prisoners only by their I.D. numbers and your guards as “Mr. Correctional Officer.” And you must ask their permission to do anything—from reading and writing to going to the bathroom.
How would you react to such conditions? Would you obey? Rebel? Become angry? Depressed? Resentful? And what if you were a guard instead of a prisoner? Would you treat prisoners with respect or would you seek to humiliate them if you were told to do so? These are the questions Zimbardo and his colleagues investigated in the famous Stanford Prison Study. It was conducted in the basement of the Stanford University psychology building, and all guards and prisoners were paid volunteers. In fact, whether a volunteer became a guard or a prisoner was determined at random.
The main purpose of the study was to determine whether participants would come to behave like real guards and real prisoners—whether they would, in a sense, conform to the norms established for these respective roles. The answer was clear: They did. The prisoners were rebellious at first, but then became increasingly passive and depressed. And the guards grew increasingly brutal and sadistic. They harassed the prisoners, forced them to make fun of one another, and assigned them to difficult, senseless tasks. The guards were encouraged to dehumanize the prisoners, thereby coming to perceive them as inferior to themselves. In fact, these changes in behavior were so dramatic that it was necessary to stop the study after only 6 days; initial plans called for it to last 2 weeks.
So, what do we learn from this striking and thought-provoking research? Philip Zimbardo, who planned the research and served as “Prison Warden,” contends that it drives home a key point about human behavior: It is the situations in which people find themselves—not their personal traits—that largely determine their behavior. Yes, people do differ in many ways; but place them in a powerful situation like this one, and such differences tend to disappear. Zimbardo (2007) suggests that it is this tendency to yield to situational pressures—including conformity to role-based norms—that is responsible for much evil behavior. As he puts it: “ . . . we all like to think that the line between good and evil is impermeable—that people who do terrible things . . . are on the other side of the line—and we could never get over there . . . . My work began by saying no, that line is permeable. The reason some people are on the good side of the line is that they’ve never been fully tested . . . .” In other words, according to Zimbardo, placed in the wrong kind of situation, virtually all of us—even those who have always been good, upstanding citizens—might commit atrocities.
Zimbardo leaves some room for personal heroism: He recognizes that some people seem able to resist even powerful situational or conformity pressures (and we’ll soon present research that explains why). Indeed, there are many historical examples of people who have resisted under the most difficult circumstances (e.g., Nelson Mandela, see Haslam & Reicher, 2012 ). But most of us, Zimbardo contends, cannot—situations are often stronger than our ability to resist and remain true to our values. As we’ll soon see, though, several factors can reduce the “press” of the situation on us, allowing us to resist the pressure to conform (e.g., Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008 ). Evidence that is provided by research involving another dramatic prison study (this time conducted jointly by social psychologists and the BBC; Reicher & Haslam, 2006 ). In this research, volunteers were, again, placed in a kind of “prison” and were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners. And once more, the guards were given means to enforce their authority over the prisoners (e.g., they could place disobedient prisoners in an isolation cell as punishment). Overall, then, although the BBC prison study was similar in many respects to Zimbardo’s famous study, important differences did exist.
For instance, in the Reicher and Haslam study it was explained to the guards and prisoners that they had been chosen for these roles on the basis of extensive psychological tests (all volunteers were actually assessed by trained psychologists prior to their selection as participants in the study). Further, it was explained that in the initial days of the study the guards could “promote” prisoners they selected to become guards, and in fact, one prisoner was promoted to become a guard. After this event, however, it was made clear that guards would remain guards and prisoners would remain prisoners, so no chance of further changes existed. Then, 3 days later, both guards and prisoners were told that careful observations indicated that in fact, no differences existed between the two groups. However, since it would be impractical to change the roles now, they would remain unchanged for the rest of the study. In a sense, this removed any legitimacy of assignments to these roles.
These differences turned out to have dramatic effects on the results. In contrast to the findings of the Stanford Prison Study, guards and prisoners in the BBC research did not passively accept their roles. Rather, the guards actually rejected their power over the prisoners while the prisoners, in contrast, identified closely with one another and took action to gain equal power. They succeeded, and for a time, the “prison” adopted a democratic structure in which guards and prisoners had relatively equal rights (see Figure 8.7 ). When this new structure seemed to fail, however, both groups moved toward acceptance of a rigidly authoritarian approach in which the prisoners surrendered almost totally and no longer offered any resistance to their inequality.
These findings point to an important conclusion: Social norms and the social structure from which they arise do not necessarily produce acceptance of inequalities. On the contrary, whether individuals go along with roles (and norms) that impose inequality depends on the extent to which the people involved identify with these roles; if their identification with the existing structure is low, they may resist and seek social
Figure 8.7 Conformity: Sometimes, It Leads Good People to Do Evil Things—But Not Always!
In a recent study that replicated Zimbardo’s famous Stanford prison experiment, volunteers were also placed in a simulated “prison” and played the roles of prisoners and guards. Initially, they showed behavior consistent with these roles, but soon the guards rejected the norms of their assigned roles, and the prisoners formed a cohesive collective identity and rebelled against the existing power structure.
change rather than simply resign themselves to their disadvantaged fate. As noted by one social psychologist ( Turner, 2006 ), this is why social change occurs: People decide to challenge an existing social structure rather than accept it, as happened in the 1950s and 1960s in the civil rights movement in the United States, the women’s movement of the 1970s and 1980s, and the “Arab Spring” which started in 2010, and continued till 2012. Large numbers of people challenged the “status quo,” and the result was major social change.
In sum, although the power of social norms and social roles to induce conformity is strong, as we’ll note in a later discussion of obedience, it is not invincible. Sometimes, under the right conditions, individuals challenge existing social orders and the rules they impose, and actively seek social change. As Turner (2006 , p. 45 ) puts it, social psychologists realize that social structures are not set in stone; on the contrary, “ . . . the future is created in the social present” and change as well as stability is a common aspect of the social side of life.
8.1.6: Reasons for Nonconformity: Why We Sometimes Choose “Not to Go Along”
Our discussion so far may have left you with the impression that pressures toward conformity are so strong that they are all but impossible to resist. But as Reicher and Haslam’s (2006) BBC prison study illustrated, this is simply not the case. Individuals—or groups of individuals—dosometimes resist conformity pressure. This was certainly true in Asch’s research where, as you may recall, most of the participants yielded to social pressure, but only part of the time. On many occasions, they stuck to their guns even in the face of a unanimous majority that disagreed with them. If you want other illustrations of resistance to conformity pressures, just look around you: You will find that while most people adhere to social norms most of the time, some do not. And most people do not go along with all social norms; rather, they pick and choose, conforming to most but rejecting at least a few. For instance, some people choose to hold and express unpopular political or social views, and continue to do so even in the face of strong pressure to conform. So, conformity pressures are not irresistible. What accounts for our ability to resist them? Many factors play a role, but we’ll focus on those identified in recent research as ones that seem to tip the balance away from conformity and toward independent thought and action.
The Actor–Observer Effect Revisited: Its Role in Resisting Pressures to Conform
Recall the actor–observer effect discussed in Chapter 3 . It refers to the fact that we tend to attribute our own behavior to external causes (i.e., the situation we face), but the actions of others to internal causes, such as their personality. Is this effect relevant to conformity? Research by Dong, Dai, and Wyer (2014) suggests that it is. These researchers studied synchronous behavior —behavior in which individuals match their actions to those of others. For instance, members of a choir sing in unison, members of an orchestra may all play the same notes, and soldiers march in step with one another (see Figure 8.8 ). Such behavior may stem from feelings of connectedness to a group—the people involved match their actions to others in the group to which they belong. Doing so may then induce stronger tendencies to conform.
The actor–observer effect enters the picture in the following way: We may either be engaged in synchronous behavior ourselves, or simply observe others doing it. As actors, we experience the pressures to conform arising from group membership, but as observers, we do not, and may, instead become sensitive to restrictions that synchronous behavior exerts on our personal freedom. Dong et al. (2014) reason further that as a result, observers may experience reactance —the feeling that our personal freedom is being restricted, and that we should resist strong pressure to conform to maintain our individuality. In other words, whether we choose to “conform” in situations requiring synchronous behavior, or resist such pressures depends, in part, on whether we are participating in such actions or merely observing them. In five studies, Dong and colleagues found evidence that actors are more likely to conform when they are focused on the goals they hope to achieve (e.g., giving a great performance when they are part of a choir or orchestra) while observers may be less aware of these goals, and so focus on the freedom of action given up by the people they watch, who are behaving in the precisely the same manner. This may induce strong feelings of reactance and the belief in observers that—I would never do that—“I want to be an
Figure 8.8 Reactions to Synchronous Behavior: Different for Actors and Observers
Recent research indicates that in some settings, individuals experience strong pressures to do exactly what others are doing. However people who observe such actions do not experience such pressures.
individual, not part of a faceless, conforming group.” As a result, their tendency to conform in this similar situation would be reduced. So in a sense, observing conforming behavior by others helps people who observe such behavior to resist the pressure to “go along.”
Power as a Shield against Conformity
Power . . . the very word conjures up images of people who are in charge—political leaders, generals, heads of corporations. Such people often seem to enjoy more freedoms than the rest of us: They make the rules and they can shape situations rather than be molded by them. Does this also make them immune—or at least resistant—to social influence? Several social psychologists have suggested that it does. For instance, Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) have noted that the restrictions that often influence the thought, expression, and behavior of most people do not seem to apply to the powerful. There are several reasons why this might be so.
First, powerful people are less dependent on others for obtaining social resources. As a result, they may not pay much attention to threats from others or efforts to constrain their actions in some way. Second, they may be less likely to take the perspective of other people ( Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006 ), and so be less influenced by them. Instead, their thoughts and actions are more directly shaped by their own internal states; in other words, there might be a closer correspondence between their traits and preferences and what they think or do than is true for most people. Overall, then, situational information might have less influence on the attitudes, intentions, and actions of powerful people.
Figure 8.9 Power Reduces Conformity
Participants asked to remember times when they had power over others (high power) were less influenced by ratings of a tedious task supposedly provided by other students than participants who thought about times when others had power over them (low power) or who did not think about power. (In the baseline conditions, participants didn’t think about power.)
Description
Research conducted by Galinsky et al. (2008) indicates that people who possessed power, or were merely primed to think about it, were in fact less likely to show conformity to the actions or judgments of others than people lower in power. In one study, for instance, participants were asked to think either about a situation in which they had power over someone (high power) or a situation in which someone else had power over them (low power). In a third condition they did not think about power. Following these conditions, they performed a tedious word construction task—one that most people do not find interesting or enjoyable. Then, they were asked to rate this task. Before doing so, however, they learned that 10 other students rated it very high on both dimensions. (In a control, baseline condition, they did not receive this information.)
It was predicted that the people who were primed to think about a time when they had power over others would rate the task less favorably than those who thought about times when others had power over them—in other words, their feelings of power would affect the extent to which they were influenced by the judgments of other people. In contrast, those not asked to think about power would be influenced by others’ opinions and therefore rate the task more favorably. As you can see from Figure 8.9 , this is precisely what happened. People in the high power group did rate the task as less enjoyable and interesting than those in the low power group. In fact, they rated it as low as those who received no bogus ratings supposedly provided by other students. In sum, power seems to free those who possess it from situational control, and to make them relatively resistant to the conformity pressures that strongly influence most of us much of the time. And in fact, we sometimes admire powerful people who ignore the rules and view their independent actions as further proof that they are somehow deserving of the power they possess.
The Desire to Be Unique and Nonconformity
Most people believe that they conform less than others, as the research of Pronin and colleagues (2007) showed. In a sense, this is far from surprising, because we all want to believe that we are unique individuals (see Snyder & Fromkin, 1980 ). Yes, we may generally dress, speak, and act like others most of the time, but in some respects, we still want to be unique. Could this desire be a factor in resisting conformity pressure? Two social psychologists— Imhoff and Erb (2009) —have obtained evidence indicating that, as other researchers suggested, it is. They reasoned that people have a need for uniqueness and that when it is threatened (when they feel their uniqueness is at risk)—they will actively resist conformity pressures to restore their sense of uniqueness.
To test this prediction, participants completed a questionnaire that, supposedly, assessed several key personality traits. They then either provided feedback indicating either that the participant was “exactly average” on these traits, or offered no feedback. The first group, of course, experienced a threat to their uniqueness, so they were expected to be motivated to resist pressures to conform. Conformity was measured in terms of the extent to which they went along with what were supposedly majority opinions about the desirability of a nearby lake as a good spot for a vacation. For half of the participants, a majority of other people endorsed the lake, while for the remainder, they rated it lower. What would participants now do? If raising their uniqueness motivation resulted in less conformity, those who had learned they were “just average” on key personality traits would be less likely to go along with the majority than those who had not received this bogus information. Results shown in Figure 8.10 supported this prediction. When the motive to be somewhat unique was threatened, individuals did respond by showing nonconformity—they refused to endorse the views supported by a majority of other people.
Figure 8.10 Asserting Uniqueness—One Way of Resisting Pressures to Conform
Research findings indicate that in order to resist strong pressure to conform people sometimes act in ways that emphasize their own uniqueness.
The Benefits of Nonconforming
Imagine that you go to a very expensive and exclusive store. How would you dress? Many people would assume that they should look their best because it is what shoppers in such stores are supposed to do. But imagine that you decided to dress casually—wear jeans and sneakers. What would happen? Would the clerks in the store ignore you or even be rude? Or would they perceive your casual dress as a sign of high status—that you are so successful or even famous you don’t have to conform—norms are for others, not for you. Research by Bellezza, Gino, and Keinan (2014) predicted that the second outcome would occur—people who dress casually would be perceived more favorably than those who conform.
To test this reasoning, they conducted several studies. In one, salespersons in these stores (e.g., Armani, Burberry, Christian Dior) were asked to imagine that a shopper entered dressed either very casually—in gym clothes—or dressed in a much more elegant clothes; the salespersons then rated the status of these shoppers. As the researchers predicted, those who were casually dressed were seen as higher status than those who were dressed in a way shoppers were expected to dress. In another study, a professor was described to students as dressing informally—in a T-shirt—or more formally, in a coat and tie. As expected, the students rated the casually dressed professor as higher in status. In a third study, they had students rated a professor who actually taught a class on negotiations dress dressed in a professional manner, or wearing red sneakers. Once again the “rebel” professor was rated higher in status. They explain these findings, as shown in Figure 8.11 , as follows: Nonconforming individuals are seen as high in personal autonomy—they “do their own thing”—while those who conform are seen as lower in autonomy, and these perceptions translate into perceiving the nonconformists as higher in status.
In sum, many factors contribute to nonconformity, so its occurrence is definitely not an accident; nor does it always stem from Shakespeare’s advice “To thine own self be true.” Just as conformity stems from a variety of causes and motives, so too does independence. Therefore, while conformity is often a safe, convenient, and useful approach to social life, there is lots of room for independence and individuality, too.
8.1.7: Minority Influence: Does the Majority Always Rule?
As we noted earlier, individuals can, and often do, resist group pressure. Lone dissenters or small minorities can dig in their heels and refuse to go along. Yet there is more going on in such situations than just resistance; in addition, there are instances in which people—minorities within the larger group—actually turn the tables on the majority and exert rather than merely receive social influence. History provides many examples of such events. Giants of science, such as Galileo, Pasteur, and Freud, faced virtually unanimous majorities who initially rejected their views. Yet, over time, they overcame such resistance and won widespread acceptance for their theories.
More recent examples of minorities influencing majorities are provided by the successes of environmentalists who are very concerned about climate change. Initially, such people were viewed as holding strange ideas and being worried about nothing. Gradually, however, they succeeded in changing the attitudes of the majority so that today, many of their views are widely accepted. As a result, views regarding burning fossil fuels such as coal for
Figure 8.11 Failing to Conform Sometimes Is Equal to Higher Status
A series of intriguing studies found that when people don’t conform, they are viewed as having high status. The reason is that people who don’t conform are seen as having greater autonomy, allowing them to behave however they choose in almost any situation.
energy have become more negative, and positive views about hybrid cars (ones that run partly on gas and partly on electricity, see Figure8.12 ) have become widespread.
But when, precisely, do minorities succeed in influencing majorities? Research findings suggest that they are most likely to do so under certain conditions ( Moscovici, 1985 ). First, the members of such groups must be consistent in their opposition to majority opinions. If they waiver, or seem to be divided, their impact is reduced. Second, members of the minority must avoid appearing to be rigid and dogmatic ( Mugny, 1975 ). A minority that merely repeats the same position over and over again is less persuasive than one that demonstrates a degree of flexibility. Third, the general social context in which a minority operates is important. If a minority argues for a position that is consistent with current social trends (e.g., conservative views at a time of growing conservatism), its chances of influencing the majority are greater than if it argues for a position out of step with such trends. Of course, even when these conditions are met, minorities face a tough uphill fight. But both history and research findings ( Haslam & Reicher, 2012 ; Kenworthy & Miller, 2001 ) indicate that they can sometimes prevail. For instance, only a minority of the people living in the United States were in favor of gaining independence from Britain when the Revolutionary War began; but that minority did prevail and found a new nation that has served as a model for many others over the intervening centuries.
Figure 8.12 The Popularity of Hybrid Cars—A Result of Concern About Global Warming
When scientists first warned about global warming, many people were skeptical. Gradually, the minority who held these views convinced others of the accuracy of their views, and became a majority.
Key Points
· Social influence—the many ways in which people produce changes in others—in their behavior, attitudes, or beliefs—is a common part of life.
· Most people behave in accordance with social norms most of the time; in other words, they show strong tendencies toward conformity. Yet, they underestimate the degree to which they conform.
· Conformity was first systematically studied by Asch, whose classic research indicated that many people will yield to social pressure from a unanimous group. Many factors determine whether, and to what extent, conformity occurs. These include cohesiveness—degree of attraction felt by an individual toward some group, group size, and type of social norm operating in that situation—descriptive or injunctive norms.
· Norms tend to influence our behavior primarily when they are salient and seen as relevant to us.
· Two important motives underlie our tendency to conform: the desire to be liked by others and the desire to be right or accurate. These two motives are reflected in two distinct types of social influence: normative and informational social influence.
· Several factors encourage nonconformity—refusing to “go along” with the group. These include status within a group, power, and the desire to be unique.
· The effects of social influence are powerful and pervasive, but tend to be magnified in situations where we are uncertain about our own judgments of what is correct.
· When we are engaged in synchronous behavior—coordinated with others—ourselves, we experience pressures to conform. But as observers, we may instead become sensitive to restrictions that synchronous behavior exerts on personal freedom and experience reactance—and resist strong pressure to conform.
· Pressures to conform often produce harmful effects and cause even good people to perform harmful actions. This was dramatically illustrated by Zimbardo’s famous prison study. The BBC prison study revealed that the extent to which this occurs depends on whether people identified with the role they were assigned; when they did not, conformity was less likely.
· Under some conditions, minorities can induce even large majorities to change their attitudes or behavior. This is most likely when the minority is consistent, but not seen as dogmatic.
8.1.2: How Social Norms Emerge
A clear illustration of private acceptance of social influence was provided many years ago by another founder of social psychology— Muzafer Sherif (1937) . Sherif was interested in several questions, but among these, two were most important: (1) How do norms develop in social groups? (2) How strong is their influence on behavior once those norms emerge? To examine these issues, he used a very interesting situation. When placed in completely dark room and exposed to a single, stationary point of light, most people perceive the light as moving about. This is because in the dark room, there are no clear cues to distance or location. The perceived movement of the point of light is known as the autokinetic phenomenon .
Sherif (1937) realized that he could use this situation to study the emergence of social norms. This is so because there is considerable ambiguity about how much the light is moving and different people perceive it as moving different distances. Thus, when placed in this setting with several others and asked to report how much they perceive the light to be moving, they influence one another and soon converge on a particular amount of movement; that agreement, in a sense, constitutes a group norm. If the same individuals are then placed in the situation alone, they continue to give estimates of the light’s movement consistent with the group norm, so clearly, the effect of such norms once formed can persist. This suggests that these effects reflect changes in what participants actually believe—private acceptance or commitment; after all, they continue to be influenced by the group norm even if they are no longer in the group!
Sherif’s findings help explain why social norms develop in many situations—especially ambiguous ones. We have a strong desire to be “correct”—to behave in an appropriate manner—and behaving consistent with social norms help us attain that goal. This is one key foundation of social influence; another is the desire to be accepted by others and liked by them. Together, these two factors virtually assure that social influence is a powerful force—one that can often strongly affect our behavior.
Asch’s research was the catalyst for much research in social psychology, as many others sought to determine the processes underlying conformity and to identify factors that influence it (e.g., Crutchfield, 1955 ; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 ). Indeed, such research is continuing today, and is adding to our understanding of the factors that affect this crucial form of social influence (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996 ; Lonnqvist, Leikas, Paunonen, Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006 ).
8.1.3: Factors Affecting Conformity
Asch’s research demonstrated the existence of powerful pressures toward conformity, but even a moment’s reflection suggests that conformity does not occur to the same degree in all settings. Why? In other words, what factors determine the extent to which individuals yield to conformity pressure or resist it? Research findings suggest that many factors play a role; here, we’ll examine those that appear to be most important.
Cohesiveness and Conformity: Being Influenced by Those We Like
One factor that strongly influences our tendency to conform—to go along with whatever norms are operating in a given situation—is cohesiveness —the extent to which we are attracted to a particular social group and want to belong to it ( Turner, 1991 ). The greater cohesiveness is the more we tend to follow the norms (i.e., rules) of the group. This is hardly surprising: The more we value being a member of a group and want to be accepted by the other members, the more we want to avoid doing anything that will separate us from them. So, prestigious fraternities and sororities can often extract very high levels of conformity from would-be members who are very eager to join these highly selective groups. Similarly, acting and looking like others is often a good way to win their approval. So, in very basic terms, the more we like other people and want to belong to the same group as they do, and the more we are uncertain of winning their acceptance, the more we tend to conform ( Crandall, 1988 ; Latané & L’Herrou, 1996 ; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995 ). In other words, cohesiveness and the desire to be accepted can be viewed as factors that intensify the tendency to conform (see Figure 8.5 ).
Conformity and Group Size: Why More Exerts Greater Social Pressure
Another factor that produces conformity is the size of the group that is exerting influence. Asch (1956) and other early researchers ( Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley, 1968 ) found that conformity increases with group size, but only up to about three or four members; beyond that point, it appears to level off. However, later research has found that conformity tends to increase with group size up to eight group members and beyond (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996 ). In short, the larger the group—the greater the number of people who behave in some specific way—the greater our tendency to conform, and “do as they do.”
Conformity and Status Within a Group
In many contexts, group members differ with respect to status, and one important source of such differences is seniority: Senior members feel less pressure to conform. Junior members of the group, in contrast, experience strong pressures to go along; after all, their position is not assured and one way of gaining status is to conform to the group’s established norms or rules. Evidence for such effects has been reported by Jetten, Hornsey, and Adarves-Yorno (2006) . These researchers found that, for instance, seniors at a university rated themselves lower in a measure of conformity (e.g., “I am easily influenced by other students”) than sophomores and juniors. Moreover, senior (high-status) persons viewed others as more conforming than themselves. Indeed, the researchers found similar effects among social psychology professors: Those who were junior (they had few years as a professor) reported a stronger tendency to conform than those who were more senior. Together, these studies suggest that although pressures to conform are strong in many settings, high status gives people an “out”—while others have to conform, they do not.
Figure 8.5 Cohesiveness: A Magnifier of Conformity Pressure
The more strongly we are attracted to a group to which we belong or would like to belong, the more likely we are to conform to the norms of this group, especially if we feel less uncertain about our acceptance by the group. For instance, “pledges” hoping to join popular sororities or fraternities tend to show high levels of conformity to the norms of these groups.
Descriptive and Injunctive Social Norms: How Norms Affect Behavior
Social norms, as we have already seen, can be formal or informal in nature—as different as rules printed on large signs and informal guidelines such as “Don’t leave your shopping cart in the middle of the parking lot outside a supermarket.” This is not the only way in which norms differ, however. Another important distinction is that between descriptive norms and injunctive norms ( Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991 ; Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993 ). Descriptive norms are ones that simply describe what most people do in a given situation. They influence behavior by informing us about what is generally seen as effective or appropriate in that situation. In contrast, injunctive norms specify how people ought to be behave—what is approved or disapproved behavior in a given situation. For instance, there is a strong injunctive norm against cheating on exams—such behavior is considered to be ethically wrong. The fact that some students disobey this norm does not change the moral expectation that they should obey it.
Both kinds of norms can exert strong effects upon our behavior (e.g., Brown, 1998 ). But when, precisely, are such norms most likely to be obeyed? One answer is provided by normative focus theory ( Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990 ). This theory suggests that norms will influence behavior only to the extent that they are salient (i.e., relevant, significant) to the people involved at the time the behavior occurs. In other words, people will obey injunctive norms only when they think about them and see them as applying to themselves and their actions. This prediction has been verified in many different studies ( Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993 ; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000 ), so it seems to be a general principle that even injunctive norms—which can be very powerful—influence our actions mainly when we recognize them and believe that they apply to us personally. This is one reason why people sometimes ignore even clear and strong injunctive norms. One example of ignoring injunctive norms is provided by people who own very expensive cars and park them so that they take up two spots. Clearly, by doing so, they are violating the strong injunctive norm indicating that each driver should occupy only one spot (see Figure 8.6 ).
Figure 8.6 Ignoring Injunctive Norms: Doing What We Want Instead of What We Are Supposed to Do
People who own very expensive cars often try to protect them by taking up two parking spots. This violates the strong injunctive norm indicating that we should park between the lines of a single spot.
8.1.4: Social Foundations of Conformity: Why We Often Choose to “Go Along”
As we have just seen, several factors determine whether and to what extent conformity occurs. Yet, this does not alter the essential point: Conformity is a basic fact of social life. Most people conform to the norms of their groups most of the time. Why is this so? Why do people often choose to go along with these social rules instead of resisting them? The answer seems to involve two powerful motives possessed by all human beings: the desire to be liked or accepted by others and the desire to be right—to have accurate understanding of the social world ( Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 ; Insko, 1985 )—plus cognitive processes that lead us to view conformity as fully justified after it has occurred (e.g., Buehler & Griffin, 1994 ).
Normative Social Influence: The Desire to Be Liked
How can we get others to like us? This is one of the eternal puzzles of social life and many tactics can prove effective in this regard. One of the most successful of these is to appear to be as similar to others as possible. From our earliest days, we learn that agreeing with the people around us, and behaving as they do, causes them to like us. Parents, teachers, friends, and others heap praise and approval on us for showing such similarity (recall our discussion of attitude formation in Chapter 5 ). One important reason we conform, therefore, is this: We have learned that doing so can help us win the approval and acceptance we crave. This source of conformity is known as normative social influence , since it involves altering our behavior to meet others’ expectations.
The Desire to Be Right: Informational Social Influence
If you want to know your weight, you can step onto a scale. If you want to know the dimensions of a room, you can measure them directly. But how can you establish the accuracy of your own political or social views, or decide which hairstyle suits you best? There are no simple physical tests or measuring devices for answering these questions. Yet we want to be correct about such matters, too. The solution to this dilemma is obvious: To answer such questions, we refer to other people. We use their opinions and actions as guides for our own. Such reliance on others, in turn, is often a powerful source of the tendency to conform. Other people’s actions and opinions define social reality for us, and we use them as a guide for our own actions and opinions. This basis for conformity is known as informational social influence , since it is based on our tendency to depend on others as a source of information about many aspects of the social world.
Research evidence suggests that because our motivation to be correct or accurate is very strong, informational social influence is a powerful source of conformity. However, as you might expect, this is more likely to be true in situations where we are highly uncertain about what is “correct” or “accurate” than in situations where we have more confidence in our own ability to make such decisions ( Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996 ). Of course, this depends on “who we are” and whose norms are salient. We won’t think out-groups are “correct” as much as in-groups ( Turner, 1991 ).
8.1.5: The Downside of Conformity
Earlier, we noted that the tendency to conform—to obey social norms—can produce positive effects. The fact that most people comply with most social norms most of the time introduces a large measure of predictability into social relations: We know how we and others are expected to behave, and can proceed on the assumption that these expectations will be met. Other motorists will drive on the correct side of the street (whatever that is in one’s own society), and stop for red lights; people waiting for service in a store will form a line and wait their turn. But as we have already noted, there is definitely a downside to conformity, too. In fact, recent research by social psychologists suggests that pressures to conform, and our tendency to surrender to such pressures, can sometimes result in very harmful effects. In fact, we’ll now discuss what is perhaps the most dramatic research illustrating such effects—a famous study by Philip Zimbardo, which showed, among other things, the powerful impact of norms concerning various social roles.
Do good people ever do bad things? The answer, of course, is “Yes.” History is filled with atrocities performed by people who, most of the time, were good neighbors, parents, and friends, and who often showed kindness and concern for others in their daily lives. Yet, under some conditions, they seem to surrender all these positive qualities and engage in actions that most of us would find inexcusable. The key question for social psychologists is: Why? What makes good people turn bad—at least sometimes? There is no single answer, and later in this chapter, we’ll discuss obedience—a form of social influence that sometimes induces good people to do bad things. But now, we’ll focus on the answer provided by one very famous study in social psychology, Zimbardo’s prison study. Here’s how this famous study took place.
Imagine that one Sunday afternoon you hear a loud knock on your door. When you go to answer, you find yourself face to face with several police officers. Without any explanation, they arrest you and take you downtown to be photographed, fingerprinted, and “booked.” (Participants did know that they had volunteered to take part in social psychological research, but still, these events were still surprising for many of them.) Next, you are blindfolded and driven to a prison whose location you can only guess. Once there, you are stripped of all your clothes and are forced to dress in an uncomfortable, loose-fitting gown and a tight nylon cap. All of your personal possessions are removed and you are given an I.D. number instead of a name. Then you are locked in an empty cell containing only the bare necessities. All guards in the prison wear identical uniforms and reflecting sunglasses. And they carry clubs, whistles, and other signs of their authority.
As a prisoner, you are expected to obey a long set of rules under threat of severe punishment. You must remain silent during rest periods and after lights are turned out each night. You must address other prisoners only by their I.D. numbers and your guards as “Mr. Correctional Officer.” And you must ask their permission to do anything—from reading and writing to going to the bathroom.
How would you react to such conditions? Would you obey? Rebel? Become angry? Depressed? Resentful? And what if you were a guard instead of a prisoner? Would you treat prisoners with respect or would you seek to humiliate them if you were told to do so? These are the questions Zimbardo and his colleagues investigated in the famous Stanford Prison Study. It was conducted in the basement of the Stanford University psychology building, and all guards and prisoners were paid volunteers. In fact, whether a volunteer became a guard or a prisoner was determined at random.
The main purpose of the study was to determine whether participants would come to behave like real guards and real prisoners—whether they would, in a sense, conform to the norms established for these respective roles. The answer was clear: They did. The prisoners were rebellious at first, but then became increasingly passive and depressed. And the guards grew increasingly brutal and sadistic. They harassed the prisoners, forced them to make fun of one another, and assigned them to difficult, senseless tasks. The guards were encouraged to dehumanize the prisoners, thereby coming to perceive them as inferior to themselves. In fact, these changes in behavior were so dramatic that it was necessary to stop the study after only 6 days; initial plans called for it to last 2 weeks.
So, what do we learn from this striking and thought-provoking research? Philip Zimbardo, who planned the research and served as “Prison Warden,” contends that it drives home a key point about human behavior: It is the situations in which people find themselves—not their personal traits—that largely determine their behavior. Yes, people do differ in many ways; but place them in a powerful situation like this one, and such differences tend to disappear. Zimbardo (2007) suggests that it is this tendency to yield to situational pressures—including conformity to role-based norms—that is responsible for much evil behavior. As he puts it: “ . . . we all like to think that the line between good and evil is impermeable—that people who do terrible things . . . are on the other side of the line—and we could never get over there . . . . My work began by saying no, that line is permeable. The reason some people are on the good side of the line is that they’ve never been fully tested . . . .” In other words, according to Zimbardo, placed in the wrong kind of situation, virtually all of us—even those who have always been good, upstanding citizens—might commit atrocities.
Zimbardo leaves some room for personal heroism: He recognizes that some people seem able to resist even powerful situational or conformity pressures (and we’ll soon present research that explains why). Indeed, there are many historical examples of people who have resisted under the most difficult circumstances (e.g., Nelson Mandela, see Haslam & Reicher, 2012 ). But most of us, Zimbardo contends, cannot—situations are often stronger than our ability to resist and remain true to our values. As we’ll soon see, though, several factors can reduce the “press” of the situation on us, allowing us to resist the pressure to conform (e.g., Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008 ). Evidence that is provided by research involving another dramatic prison study (this time conducted jointly by social psychologists and the BBC; Reicher & Haslam, 2006 ). In this research, volunteers were, again, placed in a kind of “prison” and were randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners. And once more, the guards were given means to enforce their authority over the prisoners (e.g., they could place disobedient prisoners in an isolation cell as punishment). Overall, then, although the BBC prison study was similar in many respects to Zimbardo’s famous study, important differences did exist.
For instance, in the Reicher and Haslam study it was explained to the guards and prisoners that they had been chosen for these roles on the basis of extensive psychological tests (all volunteers were actually assessed by trained psychologists prior to their selection as participants in the study). Further, it was explained that in the initial days of the study the guards could “promote” prisoners they selected to become guards, and in fact, one prisoner was promoted to become a guard. After this event, however, it was made clear that guards would remain guards and prisoners would remain prisoners, so no chance of further changes existed. Then, 3 days later, both guards and prisoners were told that careful observations indicated that in fact, no differences existed between the two groups. However, since it would be impractical to change the roles now, they would remain unchanged for the rest of the study. In a sense, this removed any legitimacy of assignments to these roles.
These differences turned out to have dramatic effects on the results. In contrast to the findings of the Stanford Prison Study, guards and prisoners in the BBC research did not passively accept their roles. Rather, the guards actually rejected their power over the prisoners while the prisoners, in contrast, identified closely with one another and took action to gain equal power. They succeeded, and for a time, the “prison” adopted a democratic structure in which guards and prisoners had relatively equal rights (see Figure 8.7 ). When this new structure seemed to fail, however, both groups moved toward acceptance of a rigidly authoritarian approach in which the prisoners surrendered almost totally and no longer offered any resistance to their inequality.
These findings point to an important conclusion: Social norms and the social structure from which they arise do not necessarily produce acceptance of inequalities. On the contrary, whether individuals go along with roles (and norms) that impose inequality depends on the extent to which the people involved identify with these roles; if their identification with the existing structure is low, they may resist and seek social
Figure 8.7 Conformity: Sometimes, It Leads Good People to Do Evil Things—But Not Always!
In a recent study that replicated Zimbardo’s famous Stanford prison experiment, volunteers were also placed in a simulated “prison” and played the roles of prisoners and guards. Initially, they showed behavior consistent with these roles, but soon the guards rejected the norms of their assigned roles, and the prisoners formed a cohesive collective identity and rebelled against the existing power structure.
change rather than simply resign themselves to their disadvantaged fate. As noted by one social psychologist ( Turner, 2006 ), this is why social change occurs: People decide to challenge an existing social structure rather than accept it, as happened in the 1950s and 1960s in the civil rights movement in the United States, the women’s movement of the 1970s and 1980s, and the “Arab Spring” which started in 2010, and continued till 2012. Large numbers of people challenged the “status quo,” and the result was major social change.
In sum, although the power of social norms and social roles to induce conformity is strong, as we’ll note in a later discussion of obedience, it is not invincible. Sometimes, under the right conditions, individuals challenge existing social orders and the rules they impose, and actively seek social change. As Turner (2006 , p. 45 ) puts it, social psychologists realize that social structures are not set in stone; on the contrary, “ . . . the future is created in the social present” and change as well as stability is a common aspect of the social side of life.
8.1.6: Reasons for Nonconformity: Why We Sometimes Choose “Not to Go Along”
Our discussion so far may have left you with the impression that pressures toward conformity are so strong that they are all but impossible to resist. But as Reicher and Haslam’s (2006) BBC prison study illustrated, this is simply not the case. Individuals—or groups of individuals—dosometimes resist conformity pressure. This was certainly true in Asch’s research where, as you may recall, most of the participants yielded to social pressure, but only part of the time. On many occasions, they stuck to their guns even in the face of a unanimous majority that disagreed with them. If you want other illustrations of resistance to conformity pressures, just look around you: You will find that while most people adhere to social norms most of the time, some do not. And most people do not go along with all social norms; rather, they pick and choose, conforming to most but rejecting at least a few. For instance, some people choose to hold and express unpopular political or social views, and continue to do so even in the face of strong pressure to conform. So, conformity pressures are not irresistible. What accounts for our ability to resist them? Many factors play a role, but we’ll focus on those identified in recent research as ones that seem to tip the balance away from conformity and toward independent thought and action.
The Actor–Observer Effect Revisited: Its Role in Resisting Pressures to Conform
Recall the actor–observer effect discussed in Chapter 3 . It refers to the fact that we tend to attribute our own behavior to external causes (i.e., the situation we face), but the actions of others to internal causes, such as their personality. Is this effect relevant to conformity? Research by Dong, Dai, and Wyer (2014) suggests that it is. These researchers studied synchronous behavior —behavior in which individuals match their actions to those of others. For instance, members of a choir sing in unison, members of an orchestra may all play the same notes, and soldiers march in step with one another (see Figure 8.8 ). Such behavior may stem from feelings of connectedness to a group—the people involved match their actions to others in the group to which they belong. Doing so may then induce stronger tendencies to conform.
The actor–observer effect enters the picture in the following way: We may either be engaged in synchronous behavior ourselves, or simply observe others doing it. As actors, we experience the pressures to conform arising from group membership, but as observers, we do not, and may, instead become sensitive to restrictions that synchronous behavior exerts on our personal freedom. Dong et al. (2014) reason further that as a result, observers may experience reactance —the feeling that our personal freedom is being restricted, and that we should resist strong pressure to conform to maintain our individuality. In other words, whether we choose to “conform” in situations requiring synchronous behavior, or resist such pressures depends, in part, on whether we are participating in such actions or merely observing them. In five studies, Dong and colleagues found evidence that actors are more likely to conform when they are focused on the goals they hope to achieve (e.g., giving a great performance when they are part of a choir or orchestra) while observers may be less aware of these goals, and so focus on the freedom of action given up by the people they watch, who are behaving in the precisely the same manner. This may induce strong feelings of reactance and the belief in observers that—I would never do that—“I want to be an
Figure 8.8 Reactions to Synchronous Behavior: Different for Actors and Observers
Recent research indicates that in some settings, individuals experience strong pressures to do exactly what others are doing. However people who observe such actions do not experience such pressures.
individual, not part of a faceless, conforming group.” As a result, their tendency to conform in this similar situation would be reduced. So in a sense, observing conforming behavior by others helps people who observe such behavior to resist the pressure to “go along.”
Power as a Shield against Conformity
Power . . . the very word conjures up images of people who are in charge—political leaders, generals, heads of corporations. Such people often seem to enjoy more freedoms than the rest of us: They make the rules and they can shape situations rather than be molded by them. Does this also make them immune—or at least resistant—to social influence? Several social psychologists have suggested that it does. For instance, Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003) have noted that the restrictions that often influence the thought, expression, and behavior of most people do not seem to apply to the powerful. There are several reasons why this might be so.
First, powerful people are less dependent on others for obtaining social resources. As a result, they may not pay much attention to threats from others or efforts to constrain their actions in some way. Second, they may be less likely to take the perspective of other people ( Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006 ), and so be less influenced by them. Instead, their thoughts and actions are more directly shaped by their own internal states; in other words, there might be a closer correspondence between their traits and preferences and what they think or do than is true for most people. Overall, then, situational information might have less influence on the attitudes, intentions, and actions of powerful people.
Figure 8.9 Power Reduces Conformity
Participants asked to remember times when they had power over others (high power) were less influenced by ratings of a tedious task supposedly provided by other students than participants who thought about times when others had power over them (low power) or who did not think about power. (In the baseline conditions, participants didn’t think about power.)
Description
Research conducted by Galinsky et al. (2008) indicates that people who possessed power, or were merely primed to think about it, were in fact less likely to show conformity to the actions or judgments of others than people lower in power. In one study, for instance, participants were asked to think either about a situation in which they had power over someone (high power) or a situation in which someone else had power over them (low power). In a third condition they did not think about power. Following these conditions, they performed a tedious word construction task—one that most people do not find interesting or enjoyable. Then, they were asked to rate this task. Before doing so, however, they learned that 10 other students rated it very high on both dimensions. (In a control, baseline condition, they did not receive this information.)
It was predicted that the people who were primed to think about a time when they had power over others would rate the task less favorably than those who thought about times when others had power over them—in other words, their feelings of power would affect the extent to which they were influenced by the judgments of other people. In contrast, those not asked to think about power would be influenced by others’ opinions and therefore rate the task more favorably. As you can see from Figure 8.9 , this is precisely what happened. People in the high power group did rate the task as less enjoyable and interesting than those in the low power group. In fact, they rated it as low as those who received no bogus ratings supposedly provided by other students. In sum, power seems to free those who possess it from situational control, and to make them relatively resistant to the conformity pressures that strongly influence most of us much of the time. And in fact, we sometimes admire powerful people who ignore the rules and view their independent actions as further proof that they are somehow deserving of the power they possess.
The Desire to Be Unique and Nonconformity
Most people believe that they conform less than others, as the research of Pronin and colleagues (2007) showed. In a sense, this is far from surprising, because we all want to believe that we are unique individuals (see Snyder & Fromkin, 1980 ). Yes, we may generally dress, speak, and act like others most of the time, but in some respects, we still want to be unique. Could this desire be a factor in resisting conformity pressure? Two social psychologists— Imhoff and Erb (2009) —have obtained evidence indicating that, as other researchers suggested, it is. They reasoned that people have a need for uniqueness and that when it is threatened (when they feel their uniqueness is at risk)—they will actively resist conformity pressures to restore their sense of uniqueness.
To test this prediction, participants completed a questionnaire that, supposedly, assessed several key personality traits. They then either provided feedback indicating either that the participant was “exactly average” on these traits, or offered no feedback. The first group, of course, experienced a threat to their uniqueness, so they were expected to be motivated to resist pressures to conform. Conformity was measured in terms of the extent to which they went along with what were supposedly majority opinions about the desirability of a nearby lake as a good spot for a vacation. For half of the participants, a majority of other people endorsed the lake, while for the remainder, they rated it lower. What would participants now do? If raising their uniqueness motivation resulted in less conformity, those who had learned they were “just average” on key personality traits would be less likely to go along with the majority than those who had not received this bogus information. Results shown in Figure 8.10 supported this prediction. When the motive to be somewhat unique was threatened, individuals did respond by showing nonconformity—they refused to endorse the views supported by a majority of other people.
Figure 8.10 Asserting Uniqueness—One Way of Resisting Pressures to Conform
Research findings indicate that in order to resist strong pressure to conform people sometimes act in ways that emphasize their own uniqueness.
The Benefits of Nonconforming
Imagine that you go to a very expensive and exclusive store. How would you dress? Many people would assume that they should look their best because it is what shoppers in such stores are supposed to do. But imagine that you decided to dress casually—wear jeans and sneakers. What would happen? Would the clerks in the store ignore you or even be rude? Or would they perceive your casual dress as a sign of high status—that you are so successful or even famous you don’t have to conform—norms are for others, not for you. Research by Bellezza, Gino, and Keinan (2014) predicted that the second outcome would occur—people who dress casually would be perceived more favorably than those who conform.
To test this reasoning, they conducted several studies. In one, salespersons in these stores (e.g., Armani, Burberry, Christian Dior) were asked to imagine that a shopper entered dressed either very casually—in gym clothes—or dressed in a much more elegant clothes; the salespersons then rated the status of these shoppers. As the researchers predicted, those who were casually dressed were seen as higher status than those who were dressed in a way shoppers were expected to dress. In another study, a professor was described to students as dressing informally—in a T-shirt—or more formally, in a coat and tie. As expected, the students rated the casually dressed professor as higher in status. In a third study, they had students rated a professor who actually taught a class on negotiations dress dressed in a professional manner, or wearing red sneakers. Once again the “rebel” professor was rated higher in status. They explain these findings, as shown in Figure 8.11 , as follows: Nonconforming individuals are seen as high in personal autonomy—they “do their own thing”—while those who conform are seen as lower in autonomy, and these perceptions translate into perceiving the nonconformists as higher in status.
In sum, many factors contribute to nonconformity, so its occurrence is definitely not an accident; nor does it always stem from Shakespeare’s advice “To thine own self be true.” Just as conformity stems from a variety of causes and motives, so too does independence. Therefore, while conformity is often a safe, convenient, and useful approach to social life, there is lots of room for independence and individuality, too.
8.1.7: Minority Influence: Does the Majority Always Rule?
As we noted earlier, individuals can, and often do, resist group pressure. Lone dissenters or small minorities can dig in their heels and refuse to go along. Yet there is more going on in such situations than just resistance; in addition, there are instances in which people—minorities within the larger group—actually turn the tables on the majority and exert rather than merely receive social influence. History provides many examples of such events. Giants of science, such as Galileo, Pasteur, and Freud, faced virtually unanimous majorities who initially rejected their views. Yet, over time, they overcame such resistance and won widespread acceptance for their theories.
More recent examples of minorities influencing majorities are provided by the successes of environmentalists who are very concerned about climate change. Initially, such people were viewed as holding strange ideas and being worried about nothing. Gradually, however, they succeeded in changing the attitudes of the majority so that today, many of their views are widely accepted. As a result, views regarding burning fossil fuels such as coal for
Figure 8.11 Failing to Conform Sometimes Is Equal to Higher Status
A series of intriguing studies found that when people don’t conform, they are viewed as having high status. The reason is that people who don’t conform are seen as having greater autonomy, allowing them to behave however they choose in almost any situation.
energy have become more negative, and positive views about hybrid cars (ones that run partly on gas and partly on electricity, see Figure8.12 ) have become widespread.
But when, precisely, do minorities succeed in influencing majorities? Research findings suggest that they are most likely to do so under certain conditions ( Moscovici, 1985 ). First, the members of such groups must be consistent in their opposition to majority opinions. If they waiver, or seem to be divided, their impact is reduced. Second, members of the minority must avoid appearing to be rigid and dogmatic ( Mugny, 1975 ). A minority that merely repeats the same position over and over again is less persuasive than one that demonstrates a degree of flexibility. Third, the general social context in which a minority operates is important. If a minority argues for a position that is consistent with current social trends (e.g., conservative views at a time of growing conservatism), its chances of influencing the majority are greater than if it argues for a position out of step with such trends. Of course, even when these conditions are met, minorities face a tough uphill fight. But both history and research findings ( Haslam & Reicher, 2012 ; Kenworthy & Miller, 2001 ) indicate that they can sometimes prevail. For instance, only a minority of the people living in the United States were in favor of gaining independence from Britain when the Revolutionary War began; but that minority did prevail and found a new nation that has served as a model for many others over the intervening centuries.
Figure 8.12 The Popularity of Hybrid Cars—A Result of Concern About Global Warming
When scientists first warned about global warming, many people were skeptical. Gradually, the minority who held these views convinced others of the accuracy of their views, and became a majority.
Key Points
· Social influence—the many ways in which people produce changes in others—in their behavior, attitudes, or beliefs—is a common part of life.
· Most people behave in accordance with social norms most of the time; in other words, they show strong tendencies toward conformity. Yet, they underestimate the degree to which they conform.
· Conformity was first systematically studied by Asch, whose classic research indicated that many people will yield to social pressure from a unanimous group. Many factors determine whether, and to what extent, conformity occurs. These include cohesiveness—degree of attraction felt by an individual toward some group, group size, and type of social norm operating in that situation—descriptive or injunctive norms.
· Norms tend to influence our behavior primarily when they are salient and seen as relevant to us.
· Two important motives underlie our tendency to conform: the desire to be liked by others and the desire to be right or accurate. These two motives are reflected in two distinct types of social influence: normative and informational social influence.
· Several factors encourage nonconformity—refusing to “go along” with the group. These include status within a group, power, and the desire to be unique.
· The effects of social influence are powerful and pervasive, but tend to be magnified in situations where we are uncertain about our own judgments of what is correct.
· When we are engaged in synchronous behavior—coordinated with others—ourselves, we experience pressures to conform. But as observers, we may instead become sensitive to restrictions that synchronous behavior exerts on personal freedom and experience reactance—and resist strong pressure to conform.
· Pressures to conform often produce harmful effects and cause even good people to perform harmful actions. This was dramatically illustrated by Zimbardo’s famous prison study. The BBC prison study revealed that the extent to which this occurs depends on whether people identified with the role they were assigned; when they did not, conformity was less likely.
· Under some conditions, minorities can induce even large majorities to change their attitudes or behavior. This is most likely when the minority is consistent, but not seen as dogmatic.