Chapter 6 Conformity and Influence In Groups

January 13, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Social Science, Psychology, Conformity
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Chapter 6 Conformity and Influence In Groups...

Description

“Four out of five dentists recommend…”

Norms are expectations governing group member’s behavior. 

 Norms may be formal, explicit  no cheating on tests

 Norms may be informal, implicit

 no picking your nose during class

 Norms may not be apparent until violated

 Is texting during class okay?

Sherif demonstrated conformity to group judgments. 

 Autokinetic effect: a stationary point of light, in a completely dark room, appears to be moving.  Individuals’ estimates of the amount of movement conformed to the group’s.

Asch found conformity to group judgments 

 Individuals estimated the length of lines.  Group members (confederates) offered different judgments.  75% of all subjects modified their estimates to conform to the group.  Public conformity doesn’t necessarily imply private conformity.

Groups may punish deviation from established norms.  Norms are most influential in ambiguous social situations. 

 Subjects littered more in a setting where others were seen littering.

Norms may persist even if they are dysfunctional. 



Social impact theory  Each additional member adds pressure to conform.  Each new member’s influence is proportionally less.



Social influence model  The first few people added exert the most pressure to conform.  Conformity levels off with additional members.  For example, if the first 9 group members don’t convince someone, neither will the 10th.



Informational influence  Members want to be correct, accurate.  More heads are better than one.  Consistent with social influence model



Normative influence  Members want to be liked, accepted by the group.  Groups provide a sense belonging, connectedness.  Consistent with social impact theory

It is difficult for a lone dissenter to resist unanimous group pressure.  A holdout with even one ally can resist more easily. 

 A second dissenter decreases conformity by 80%.

Identification and reference groups 

 Reference groups provide standards of comparison for selfappraisal.  “Keeping up with the Joneses…”

 People consider reference groups when making decisions.



Groupthink  Members engage in consensus-seeking.  They reinforce one another’s opinions.  They fail to question or analyze ideas.

In general women tend to conform more than men. 

 Sex roles affect conformity  Females are socialized to be more communal.  Males are socialized to be more independent.

 Status affects conformity  Sex functions as a status cue.  Males generally enjoy higher status in organizational settings.

Peer influence increases during adolescence.  Peer pressure can promote risky behaviors. 

 Tobacco, alcohol, drug use

Peer pressure can lead to aggression. 

 Hazing, teasing, ostracism can spark violence.  Online hazing can trigger suicides.

Peer pressure also has positive effects. 

 Peers also model desirable behavior.

High self-monitors tend to conform more than low self-monitors.  Dogmatic people tend to conform more than non-dogmatics. 



Ethnocentrism  Using one’s own culture as the benchmark for judging other cultures.



Individualism-Collectivism  Individualistic cultures view conformity more negatively.  Collectivistic cultures view conformity more positively.



Group locomotion  The individual goes along to achieve the goals of the group.



Social comparison  The group is a yardstick for measuring one’s own performance.



Consistency  Liking and identification with the group discourages deviance



Epistemological weighting  Members think the group knows more than they do.



Hedonistic hypothesis  Members conform to receive social benefits, avoid social rejection.



Monkey see, monkey do  People base their behavior on what others are doing.  Internet piracy  Urban graffiti



Viral marketing relies on social proof  A social phenomenon is spread by word of mouth.



Negative social proof  “Everyone else is doing it” is based on appeals to the crowd.

Slackers: People exert less effort in a group than working alone. 

 The Ringlemann effect: in a tug of war, adding team members reduces individual effort.  Decision making & problem solving: as members are added, individual effort tapers off.



Collective effort model



Free ride effect



Sucker effect

 Members coast if individuals’ contributions can’t be distinguished.  Members coast if they are anonymous.  Members coast if they aren’t personally accountable.

 Productive members slack off when they see others aren’t working.





Risky-shift phenomenon  Groups are prone to make riskier decisions than individuals.  The group’s consensus is typically riskier than the average risk-level of its members.



Social comparison theory

 Members entertain ideas they would not otherwise consider.

Persuasive arguments theory (PAT) 

 The most vocal members advocate the most extreme views.

There can also be a shift  Groups enhance members’ pre- toward greater caution

Group polarization

existing tendencies toward risk-taking or risk-aversion.  High risk-takers skew the average willingness of the group to assume risks.



 More vocal members may advocate greater caution.

Social ostracism can lead to anti-social behavior 

 School shootings  Cyber-bullying



Depersonalization

 Individual identity is subsumed to that of the group.  Personal accountability is lacking.  A diffusion of responsibility occurs.  “It’s not my problem.”  “It’s none of my business.”

 Anonymity increases deindividuation.



Negative social consequences  Mob psychology

 Vandalism perpetrated by unruly sports fans  Treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

 Crowd size affects antisocial behavior.  Bystander effects

 Bystanders may fail to help in an emergency.

 Self-Awareness

 Increasing self-awareness reduces deindividuation.  Increasing accountability decreases deindividuation.

Richmond, CA, 2009: A 15 year old was the victim of a gang rape outside her high school’s homecoming dance. 



People in a crowd who see others doing nothing do nothing themselves. 



 social proof

The ordeal lasted 2 ½ hours.

At least 20 passers-by failed to call police.

 Deindividuation



Other witnesses watched, laughed, and took pictures. 

Bystanders fail to act based on:

Increasing private awareness can overcome the bystander effect. 

Identifying individuals can overcome the bystander effect. 

 “You, in the red sweater, call 911!”  “Mam, I need your help. Go pull the fire alarm.”

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF