Conformity

1
 Conformity
• the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions,
and/or behaviors in ways that are consistent with social
norms
• Why do people conform?

2
3
Informational Conformity
• Sherif’s autokinetic effect
– observed light alone
– observed light in a group
– asked to estimate again in private

• final estimate closer to group’s estimate than the

original

• Sherif suggested that this was a simulation for how

social norms develop in a society, providing a common
frame of reference for people.

(Sherif, 1936) 4
 Informational Conformity
• autokinetic effect
– People want to make correct judgements
– in ambiguous situations, people believe others are
correct
– private conformity (acceptance)

(Sherif, 1936) 5
 Normative Conformity
• Asch’s conformity study – Vision Test

http://wn.com/A_study_of_Conformity__Solomon_E_Asch

(Asch 1951, 1956)

6
 Normative Conformity
• Asch’s conformity study (Asch 1951, 1956)

– groups of 8
– confederates erred on 12 of 18 judgments
– 37% conformed (only 1% error rate in private)
– public conformity

7
 Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies
• Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants turned
to each other for guidance.
– Informational conformity
• Asch: Found self in awkward position.
– Obvious that group was wrong.
– Possible sanctions: Ostracism, Mocking, etc.
– Normative conformity

8
 Conformity
• Subsequent studies showed that many factors
contribute to conformity
– group size influences conformity
Three to five people will elicit much more conformity than just one or two.
Increasing the number of people beyond five yields diminishing returns.

Milgram, Bickman, and

Berkowitz (1969) had 1,2,3,5,10,
or 15 people pause on a busy
New York City sidewalk and
look up. The percentage of
passers-by who also looked up
9
 Conformity
• Subsequent studies showed that many factors
contribute to conformity
– Unanimity: Even one nonconforming confederate
can be liberating.
– Cohesion: The more cohesive a group is, the more
power it gains over its members.
– Status: Higher-status people tend to have more
impact.
• Milgram’s (1974) obedience experiment
10
• Milgram’s obedience
experiments
– Adolph Eichmann was
being tried for Nazi war
crimes.
– Trying to gain insight into
obedience of Nazis
Stanley Milgram
(1933-1984)

11
• Four verbal prods:
– Please continue
– The experiment requires
that you continue
– It is absolutely essential
that you continue
– You have no other
choice; you must go on

12
13
 Six Weapons of Social Influence
• Tap into our automatic
processes
• compliance
professionals use this
processing to their
advantage

(Cialdini, 2000) 14
• reciprocation: repay in kind what another
person has given us
– powerful and pervasive (cross-culturally)

(Cialdini, 2000) 15
• Reciprocation: “County Youth Counseling
Program”
– supervising 2 hours at the zoo -- 17% agreed;

– 2 hrs/wk for 2 years as a counselor -- 0 agreed; then

the same zoo request -- 50% agreed

(Cialdini et al., 1975) 16

• reciprocation
– door-in-the-face technique: real request is prefaced by one
so large that it is rejected; real request seen as a
concession

17
• commitment and consistency: taps our strong
desire to be consistent over time
– foot-in-the-door technique: real request is preceded by
first getting compliance with a much smaller request

(Cialdini, 2000) 18
• commitment and consistency
– California homeowners asked to display a 3-inch
square sign that read “Be a Safe Driver”
– 2 weeks later: display a PSA billboard in the front
lawn that read “Drive Carefully”

(Freedman & Fraser, 1966) 19

• commitment and consistency
– only asked to display billboard -- 17% complied
– asked first and second request -- 76% complied

(Freedman & Fraser, 1966) 20

• commitment and consistency
– low-balling: secure agreement with a request, but then
increase the size of the request by revealing hidden
costs
• e.g., used car salesman

21
• commitment and consistency
– Low-Ball group
– asked students to participate in an experiment - 56 percent agreed
– then told the volunteers that the study was scheduled at 7 a.m. and
the volunteers could withdraw if they wished, none did so and 95
percent turned up at the scheduled time
– control group
– asked students to participate in an experiment scheduled at 7am- only
24 per cent agreed.

(Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett, & Miller, 1978) 22

• social proof: the situation may be fabricated to
influence you to act in a certain way
– Informational social influence
• occurs in ambiguous social situations when
people are unable to determine the appropriate
mode of behavior.
• assuming that surrounding people possess more
knowledge about the situation

(Cialdini, 2000) 23
• social proof
– works best in ambiguous situations
– if all these people are waiting, the place must be good
(restaurants, bars)
– All those girls seem to really like him, there must be
something about him that's high value

24
• liking: people are more persuasive the more we
like them and the more similar they are to us
– Similarity
– Attractiveness
• We feel obligated to those we like because we
don’t want them to start disliking us

(Cialdini, 2000) 25
• authority: we tend to have an automatic
response to authorities (i.e., a heuristic)

(Cialdini, 2000) 26
• scarcity: People are much more sensitive to
potential losses than to potential gains (Hobfoll,
2001).
• Opportunities seem more valuable to us when
they are less available.

(Cialdini, 2000) 27
• Cookie Studies: Worchel, Lee, & Adewole
(1975)
– 2 vs. 10 cookies in a jar
• How much do you like the cookies?
• How attractive the cookies are?
• How much would you pay for the cookies
– Attractiveness and cost willing paid
higher in the scarcity condition

28
 Weapons of Social Influence
• Scarcity
– When people learn that some arguments has been censored, they become
more sympathetic to them (Worchel, Arnold, & Baker, 1975).
– College students had a greater desire to read a book, and a greater belief
that they would enjoy the book, when they were informed that it was “for
adults only, restricted to those 21 years and older” (Zellinger, Fromkin,
Speller, & Kohn, 1974).
– A salesperson can easily secure a commitment to purchase an item when
it is presumed that the item is unavailable, while the information that a
desired item is in good supply can make it less attractive (Schwarz, 1984).

29
 Three types of comformity

– Compliance: outward but not inward

conformity (we comply to reap a reward or to
avoid a punishment)

– Obedience: Comply to an explicit command

(from an authority figure)

– Acceptance: sincere, inward/private

conformity
30