{"id":171,"date":"2019-08-07T16:55:51","date_gmt":"2019-08-07T20:55:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/chapter\/conformity-compliance-and-obedience\/"},"modified":"2021-09-16T15:24:12","modified_gmt":"2021-09-16T19:24:12","slug":"conformity-compliance-and-obedience","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/chapter\/conformity-compliance-and-obedience\/","title":{"raw":"Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience","rendered":"Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Learning Objectives<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\r\n\r\nBy the end of this section, you will be able to:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Explain the Asch effect<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Define conformity and types of social influence<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Describe Stanley Milgram\u2019s experiment and its implications<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Define groupthink, social facilitation, and social loafing<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp67507296\">In this section, we discuss additional ways in which people influence others. The topics of conformity, social influence, obedience, and group processes demonstrate the power of the social situation to change our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We begin this section with a discussion of a famous social psychology experiment that demonstrated how susceptible humans are to outside social pressures.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp94715984\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Conformity<\/h1>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm44119104\">Solomon <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Asch<\/span> conducted several experiments in the 1950s to determine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In one study, a group of participants was shown a series of printed line segments of different lengths: a, b, and c. Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_Asch\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"487\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160859\/CNX_Psych_12_04_Asch.jpg\" alt=\"A drawing has two boxes: in the first is a line labeled \u201cx\u201d and in the second are three lines of different lengths from each other, labeled \u201ca,\u201d \u201cb,\u201d and \u201cc.\u201d\" width=\"487\" height=\"286\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> These line segments illustrate the judgment task in Asch\u2019s conformity study. Which line on the right\u2014a, b, or c\u2014is the same length as line x on the left?[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp105214560\">Each group of participants had only one true, na\u00efve subject. The remaining members of the group were confederates of the researcher. A <span data-type=\"term\">confederate<\/span> is a person who is aware of the experiment and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate social situations as part of the research design, and the true, na\u00efve participants believe that confederates are, like them, uninformed participants in the experiment. In Asch\u2019s study, the confederates identified a line segment that was obviously shorter than the target line\u2014a wrong answer. The na\u00efve participant then had to identify aloud the line segment that best matched the target line segment.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp42941744\">How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates\u2019 response? That is, how often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant gave the wrong answer? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. <span data-type=\"term\">Conformity<\/span> is the change in a person\u2019s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group. Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors would increase or decrease someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp40030816\">The <span data-type=\"term\">Asch effect<\/span> is the influence of the group majority on an individual\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp386208\">What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that the size of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of responses are key influences on conformity.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-idp75952528\">\r\n \t<li>The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point where adding more members does not increase conformity. In Asch\u2019s study, conformity increased with the number of people in the majority\u2014up to seven individuals. At numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased slightly (Asch, 1955).<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conformity rates drop to near zero (Asch, 1955).<\/li>\r\n \t<li>The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made publicly (in front of others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses are made privately (e.g., writing down the response), conformity is less likely (Deutsch &amp; Gerard, 1955).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p id=\"eip-598\">The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are not coerced by others. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Asch effect<\/span> can be easily seen in children when they have to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the children would rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest will comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority might vote differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When someone\u2019s vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as compliance. Compliance can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a request or demand, even if you do not agree with the request. In Asch\u2019s studies, the participants complied by giving the wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the obvious wrong answers were correct.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_voting\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"488\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160903\/CNX_Psych_12_04_voting.jpg\" alt=\"A photograph shows a row of curtained voting booths; two are occupied by people.\" width=\"488\" height=\"328\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> Voting for government officials in the United States is private to reduce the pressure of conformity. (credit: Nicole Klauss)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm17892912\">Now that you have learned about the Asch line experiments, why do you think the participants conformed? The correct answer to the line segment question was obvious, and it was an easy task. Researchers have categorized the motivation to conform into two types: normative social influence and informational social influence (Deutsch &amp; Gerard, 1955).<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm36771920\">In <span data-type=\"term\">normative social influence<\/span>, people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group. However, with <span data-type=\"term\">informational social influence<\/span>, people conform because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information, particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was operating in the Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was unambiguous, participants did not need to rely on the group for information. Instead, participants complied to fit in and avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social influence.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp57354976\">An example of informational social influence may be what to do in an emergency situation. Imagine that you are in a movie theater watching a film and what seems to be smoke comes in the theater from under the emergency exit door. You are not certain that it is smoke\u2014it might be a special effect for the movie, such as a fog machine. When you are uncertain you will tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If other people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the same. However, if others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put and continue watching the movie.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_audience\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"649\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160907\/CNX_Psych_12_04_audience.jpg\" alt=\"Photograph A shows people seated in an auditorium. Photograph B shows a person crowd surfing.\" width=\"649\" height=\"295\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> People in crowds tend to take cues from others and act accordingly. (a) An audience is listening to a lecture and people are relatively quiet, still, and attentive to the speaker on the stage. (b) An audience is at a rock concert where people are dancing, singing, and possibly engaging in activities like crowd surfing. (credit a: modification of work by Matt Brown; credit b: modification of work by Christian Holm\u00e9r)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp68166576\">How would you have behaved if you were a participant in Asch\u2019s study? Many students say they would not conform, that the study is outdated, and that people nowadays are more independent. To some extent this may be true. Research suggests that overall rates of conformity may have reduced since the time of Asch\u2019s research. Furthermore, efforts to replicate Asch\u2019s study have made it clear that many factors determine how likely it is that someone will demonstrate conformity to the group. These factors include the participant\u2019s age, gender, and socio-cultural background (Bond &amp; Smith, 1996; Larsen, 1990; Walker &amp; Andrade, 1996).<span id=\"fs-idm1215680\" data-type=\"media\" data-alt=\"\"><\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp236416\" class=\"note psychology link-to-learning\" data-type=\"note\" data-has-label=\"true\" data-label=\"Link to learning\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox\">\r\n\r\nWatch this video to see a replication of the Asch experiment: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=-qlJqR4GmKw\">conformity<\/a>.\r\n\r\n[embed]https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/-qlJqR4GmKw[\/embed]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp42936528\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Stanley Milgram's Experiment<\/h1>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp4108144\">Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to authority. <span data-type=\"term\">Obedience<\/span> is the change of an individual\u2019s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure. People often comply with the request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do not comply. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology experiment.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp99060544\">Stanley <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Milgram<\/span> was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann\u2019s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was \u201cjust following orders.\u201d Milgram (1963) wanted to test the validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item\u2014that the shock would help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp40286192\">In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive. What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_milgram\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160911\/CNX_Psych_12_04_milgram.jpg\" alt=\"A graph shows the voltage of shock given on the x-axis, and the percentage of participants who delivered voltage on the y-axis. All or nearly all participants delivered slight to moderate shock (15\u2013135 volts); with strong to very strong shock (135\u2013255 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 80%; with intense to extremely intense shock (255\u2013375 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 65%; the participation percentage remained at about 65% for severe shock (375\u2013435 volts) and XXX (435\u2013450 volts).\" width=\"975\" height=\"480\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> The Milgram experiment showed the surprising degree to which people obey authority. Two out of three (65%) participants continued to administer shocks to an unresponsive learner.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp131898256\">Several variations of the original <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Milgram<\/span> experiment were conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers\u2019 and learners\u2019 hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm1156832\">This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical? In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority, going against their own beliefs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm48365696\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Groupthink<\/h1>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm56571872\">When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink. <span data-type=\"term\">Groupthink<\/span> is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h2>Groupthink in the U.S. Government<\/h2>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm16557840\" class=\"note psychology dig-deeper\" data-type=\"note\" data-has-label=\"true\" data-label=\"Dig Deeper\">\r\n\r\nThere have been several instances of groupthink in the U.S. government. One example occurred when the United States led a small coalition of nations to invade Iraq in March 2003. This invasion occurred because a small group of advisors and former President George W. Bush were convinced that Iraq represented a significant terrorism threat with a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. Although some of these individuals may have had some doubts about the credibility of the information available to them at the time, in the end, the group arrived at a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and represented a significant threat to national security. It later came to light that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but not until the invasion was well underway. As a result, 6000 American soldiers were killed and many more civilians died. How did the Bush administration arrive at their conclusions?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp104000000\">Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive, or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp37282880\">There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-idp151727856\">\r\n \t<li>perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible\u2014believing it can do no wrong<\/li>\r\n \t<li>believing the group is morally correct<\/li>\r\n \t<li>self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus<\/li>\r\n \t<li>the quashing of dissenting group members\u2019 opinions<\/li>\r\n \t<li>the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views<\/li>\r\n \t<li>perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members<\/li>\r\n \t<li>holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others\u2019 with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm58989264\">Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell &amp; Eckstein, 2009).<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp48752880\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Group Polarization<\/h1>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp81624992\">Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. <span data-type=\"term\">Group polarization<\/span> (Teger &amp; Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them. A more everyday example is a group\u2019s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp61706704\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"2\">\r\n<h2 data-type=\"title\">Social Facilitation<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp55784864\">Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. <span data-type=\"term\">Social facilitation<\/span> occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym. However, there are instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when performing in front of others, depending on the task.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_freethrow\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"488\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160916\/CNX_Psych_12_04_freethrown.jpg\" alt=\"A photograph shows a basketball game.\" width=\"488\" height=\"390\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> The attention of the crowd can motivate a skilled athlete. (credit: Tommy Gilligan\/USMA)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp131512912\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"2\">\r\n<h2 data-type=\"title\">Social Loafing<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp131882256\">Another way in which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. <span data-type=\"term\">Social loafing<\/span> is the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau &amp; Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual\u2019s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard and who didn\u2019t.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idm39427696\">As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow group members weren\u2019t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn\u2019t know how much effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd &amp; Taylor, 1999).<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp81251168\">Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond &amp; Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latan\u00e9, Williams, &amp; Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson &amp; Williams, 1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals\u2019 efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals\u2019 efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<table id=\"Table_12_04_01\" style=\"width: 100%;\" summary=\"This table has two columns and ten rows. The first row is a header row with these headings: \u201cTypes of social influence\u201d and \u201cDescription.\u201d Row 2 describes \u201cconformity\u201d as \u201cChanging your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group.\u201d Row 3 describes \u201cCompliance\u201d as \u201cGoing along with a request or demand.\u201d Row 4 describes \u201cNormative social influence\u201d as \u201cConformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group.\u201d Row 5 describes \u201cInformational social influence\u201d as \u201cConformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information.\u201d Row 6 describes \u201cObedience\u201d as \u201cChanging your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences.\u201d Row 7 describes \u201cGroupthink\u201d as \u201cGroup members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus.\u201d Row 8 describes \u201cGroup polarization\u201d as \u201cStrengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group.\u201d Row 9 describes \u201cSocial facilitation\u201d as \u201cImproved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone.\u201d Row 10 describes \u201cSocial loafing \u201d as \u201cExertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks.\u201d\"><caption><span data-type=\"title\">Types of Social Influence<\/span><\/caption><colgroup> <col data-width=\"200\" \/> <col data-width=\"400\" \/><\/colgroup>\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr>\r\n<th data-align=\"center\">Type of Social Influence<\/th>\r\n<th data-align=\"center\">Description<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Conformity<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Changing your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Compliance<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Going along with a request or demand<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Normative social influence<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Informational social influence<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Obedience<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Changing your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Groupthink<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Group polarization<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Social facilitation<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Social loafing<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm64832736\" class=\"summary\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Test Your Understanding<\/h1>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">[h5p id=\"193\"]<\/div>\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Summary<\/h1>\r\n<p id=\"fs-idp60849280\">The power of the situation can lead people to conform, or go along with the group, even in the face of inaccurate information. Conformity to group norms is driven by two motivations, the desire to fit in and be liked and the desire to be accurate and gain information from the group. Authority figures also have influence over our behaviors, and many people become obedient and follow orders even if the orders are contrary to their personal values. Conformity to group pressures can also result in groupthink, or the faulty decision-making process that results from cohesive group members trying to maintain group harmony. Group situations can improve human behavior through facilitating performance on easy tasks, but inhibiting performance on difficult tasks. The presence of others can also lead to social loafing when individual efforts cannot be evaluated.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm68336432\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Review Questions<\/h1>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp60391584\" class=\"exercise\" data-type=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp126386400\" class=\"problem\" data-type=\"problem\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">[h5p id=\"194\"]<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm14114768\" class=\"critical-thinking\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Critical Thinking Questions<\/h1>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\"><details><summary>\u00a0 \u00a0 Describe how seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink.<\/summary>Outsiders can serve as a quality control by offering diverse views and views that may differ from the leader\u2019s opinion. The outsider can also remove the illusion of invincibility by having the group\u2019s action held up to outside scrutiny. An outsider may offer additional information and uncover information that group members withheld.\r\n\r\n<\/details>&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<details><summary>\u00a0 \u00a0 Compare and contrast social loafing and social facilitation.<\/summary>In social loafing individual performance cannot be evaluated; however, in social facilitation individual performance can be evaluated. Social loafing and social facilitation both occur for easy or well-known tasks and when individuals are relaxed.\r\n\r\n<\/details><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idm67778336\" class=\"personal-application\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Personal Application Questions<\/h1>\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp5455552\" class=\"exercise\" data-type=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-idp3607264\" class=\"problem\" data-type=\"problem\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li id=\"fs-idm1243568\">Conduct a conformity study the next time you are in an elevator. After you enter the elevator, stand with your back toward the door. See if others conform to your behavior. Did your results turn out as expected?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Most students adamantly state that they would never have turned up the voltage in the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Milgram_experiment\">Milligram experiment<\/a>. Do you think you would have refused to shock the learner? Looking at your own past behavior, what evidence suggests that you would go along with the order to increase the voltage?<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h1 data-type=\"glossary-title\">Glossary<\/h1>\r\n[h5p id=\"195\"]\r\n<h3>Media Attributions<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>\"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=-qlJqR4GmKw\">conformity<\/a>\" by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCKHp9TUra8hjjqxnf9WyJ4w\">freescoring<\/a>. Standard YouTube License.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox textbox--learning-objectives\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<p class=\"textbox__title\">Learning Objectives<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox__content\">\n<p>By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Explain the Asch effect<\/li>\n<li>Define conformity and types of social influence<\/li>\n<li>Describe Stanley Milgram\u2019s experiment and its implications<\/li>\n<li>Define groupthink, social facilitation, and social loafing<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idp67507296\">In this section, we discuss additional ways in which people influence others. The topics of conformity, social influence, obedience, and group processes demonstrate the power of the social situation to change our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. We begin this section with a discussion of a famous social psychology experiment that demonstrated how susceptible humans are to outside social pressures.<\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-idp94715984\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Conformity<\/h1>\n<p id=\"fs-idm44119104\">Solomon <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Asch<\/span> conducted several experiments in the 1950s to determine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other people. In one study, a group of participants was shown a series of printed line segments of different lengths: a, b, and c. Participants were then shown a fourth line segment: x. They were asked to identify which line segment from the first group (a, b, or c) most closely resembled the fourth line segment in length.<\/p>\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_Asch\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<figure style=\"width: 487px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160859\/CNX_Psych_12_04_Asch.jpg\" alt=\"A drawing has two boxes: in the first is a line labeled \u201cx\u201d and in the second are three lines of different lengths from each other, labeled \u201ca,\u201d \u201cb,\u201d and \u201cc.\u201d\" width=\"487\" height=\"286\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">These line segments illustrate the judgment task in Asch\u2019s conformity study. Which line on the right\u2014a, b, or c\u2014is the same length as line x on the left?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idp105214560\">Each group of participants had only one true, na\u00efve subject. The remaining members of the group were confederates of the researcher. A <span data-type=\"term\">confederate<\/span> is a person who is aware of the experiment and works for the researcher. Confederates are used to manipulate social situations as part of the research design, and the true, na\u00efve participants believe that confederates are, like them, uninformed participants in the experiment. In Asch\u2019s study, the confederates identified a line segment that was obviously shorter than the target line\u2014a wrong answer. The na\u00efve participant then had to identify aloud the line segment that best matched the target line segment.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp42941744\">How often do you think the true participant aligned with the confederates\u2019 response? That is, how often do you think the group influenced the participant, and the participant gave the wrong answer? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. <span data-type=\"term\">Conformity<\/span> is the change in a person\u2019s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group. Why would people give the wrong answer? What factors would increase or decrease someone giving in or conforming to group pressure?<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp40030816\">The <span data-type=\"term\">Asch effect<\/span> is the influence of the group majority on an individual\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp386208\">What factors make a person more likely to yield to group pressure? Research shows that the size of the majority, the presence of another dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of responses are key influences on conformity.<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-idp75952528\">\n<li>The size of the majority: The greater the number of people in the majority, the more likely an individual will conform. There is, however, an upper limit: a point where adding more members does not increase conformity. In Asch\u2019s study, conformity increased with the number of people in the majority\u2014up to seven individuals. At numbers beyond seven, conformity leveled off and decreased slightly (Asch, 1955).<\/li>\n<li>The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conformity rates drop to near zero (Asch, 1955).<\/li>\n<li>The public or private nature of the responses: When responses are made publicly (in front of others), conformity is more likely; however, when responses are made privately (e.g., writing down the response), conformity is less likely (Deutsch &amp; Gerard, 1955).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p id=\"eip-598\">The finding that conformity is more likely to occur when responses are public than when they are private is the reason government elections require voting in secret, so we are not coerced by others. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Asch effect<\/span> can be easily seen in children when they have to publicly vote for something. For example, if the teacher asks whether the children would rather have extra recess, no homework, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest will comply and go with the majority. In a different classroom, the majority might vote differently, and most of the children would comply with that majority. When someone\u2019s vote changes if it is made in public versus private, this is known as compliance. Compliance can be a form of conformity. Compliance is going along with a request or demand, even if you do not agree with the request. In Asch\u2019s studies, the participants complied by giving the wrong answers, but privately did not accept that the obvious wrong answers were correct.<\/p>\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_voting\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<figure style=\"width: 488px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160903\/CNX_Psych_12_04_voting.jpg\" alt=\"A photograph shows a row of curtained voting booths; two are occupied by people.\" width=\"488\" height=\"328\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Voting for government officials in the United States is private to reduce the pressure of conformity. (credit: Nicole Klauss)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idm17892912\">Now that you have learned about the Asch line experiments, why do you think the participants conformed? The correct answer to the line segment question was obvious, and it was an easy task. Researchers have categorized the motivation to conform into two types: normative social influence and informational social influence (Deutsch &amp; Gerard, 1955).<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm36771920\">In <span data-type=\"term\">normative social influence<\/span>, people conform to the group norm to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group. However, with <span data-type=\"term\">informational social influence<\/span>, people conform because they believe the group is competent and has the correct information, particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous. What type of social influence was operating in the Asch conformity studies? Since the line judgment task was unambiguous, participants did not need to rely on the group for information. Instead, participants complied to fit in and avoid ridicule, an instance of normative social influence.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp57354976\">An example of informational social influence may be what to do in an emergency situation. Imagine that you are in a movie theater watching a film and what seems to be smoke comes in the theater from under the emergency exit door. You are not certain that it is smoke\u2014it might be a special effect for the movie, such as a fog machine. When you are uncertain you will tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If other people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the same. However, if others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put and continue watching the movie.<\/p>\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_audience\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<figure style=\"width: 649px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160907\/CNX_Psych_12_04_audience.jpg\" alt=\"Photograph A shows people seated in an auditorium. Photograph B shows a person crowd surfing.\" width=\"649\" height=\"295\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">People in crowds tend to take cues from others and act accordingly. (a) An audience is listening to a lecture and people are relatively quiet, still, and attentive to the speaker on the stage. (b) An audience is at a rock concert where people are dancing, singing, and possibly engaging in activities like crowd surfing. (credit a: modification of work by Matt Brown; credit b: modification of work by Christian Holm\u00e9r)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idp68166576\">How would you have behaved if you were a participant in Asch\u2019s study? Many students say they would not conform, that the study is outdated, and that people nowadays are more independent. To some extent this may be true. Research suggests that overall rates of conformity may have reduced since the time of Asch\u2019s research. Furthermore, efforts to replicate Asch\u2019s study have made it clear that many factors determine how likely it is that someone will demonstrate conformity to the group. These factors include the participant\u2019s age, gender, and socio-cultural background (Bond &amp; Smith, 1996; Larsen, 1990; Walker &amp; Andrade, 1996).<span id=\"fs-idm1215680\" data-type=\"media\" data-alt=\"\"><\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-idp236416\" class=\"note psychology link-to-learning\" data-type=\"note\" data-has-label=\"true\" data-label=\"Link to learning\">\n<div class=\"textbox\">\n<p>Watch this video to see a replication of the Asch experiment: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=-qlJqR4GmKw\">conformity<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-1\" title=\"conformity\" width=\"500\" height=\"375\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/-qlJqR4GmKw?feature=oembed&#38;rel=0\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idp42936528\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Stanley Milgram&#8217;s Experiment<\/h1>\n<p id=\"fs-idp4108144\">Conformity is one effect of the influence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social influence is obedience to authority. <span data-type=\"term\">Obedience<\/span> is the change of an individual\u2019s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure. People often comply with the request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do not comply. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we review another classic social psychology experiment.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp99060544\">Stanley <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Milgram<\/span> was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann\u2019s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was \u201cjust following orders.\u201d Milgram (1963) wanted to test the validity of this defense, so he designed an experiment and initially recruited 40 men for his experiment. The volunteer participants were led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory. The participants were told that they were to teach other students (learners) correct answers to a series of test items. The participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners. The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item\u2014that the shock would help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, which increased in 15-volt increments, all the way up to 450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp40286192\">In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them. The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble. Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive. What makes someone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another person?<\/p>\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_milgram\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<figure style=\"width: 975px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160911\/CNX_Psych_12_04_milgram.jpg\" alt=\"A graph shows the voltage of shock given on the x-axis, and the percentage of participants who delivered voltage on the y-axis. All or nearly all participants delivered slight to moderate shock (15\u2013135 volts); with strong to very strong shock (135\u2013255 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 80%; with intense to extremely intense shock (255\u2013375 volts), the participation percentage dropped to about 65%; the participation percentage remained at about 65% for severe shock (375\u2013435 volts) and XXX (435\u2013450 volts).\" width=\"975\" height=\"480\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Milgram experiment showed the surprising degree to which people obey authority. Two out of three (65%) participants continued to administer shocks to an unresponsive learner.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idp131898256\">Several variations of the original <span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Milgram<\/span> experiment were conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. When certain features of the situation were changed, participants were less likely to continue to deliver shocks (Milgram, 1965). For example, when the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the percentage of participants who delivered the highest shock dropped to 48%. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%. When the teachers\u2019 and learners\u2019 hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%. When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%. These variations show that when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased. Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm1156832\">This case is still very applicable today. What does a person do if an authority figure orders something done? What if the person believes it is incorrect, or worse, unethical? In a study by Martin and Bull (2008), midwives privately filled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a more senior midwife and supervisor asked the junior midwives to do something they had previously stated they were opposed to. Most of the junior midwives were obedient to authority, going against their own beliefs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm48365696\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Groupthink<\/h1>\n<p id=\"fs-idm56571872\">When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Whether it is due to normative or informational social influence, groups have power to influence individuals. Another phenomenon of group conformity is groupthink. <span data-type=\"term\">Groupthink<\/span> is the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In group situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elimination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the group.<\/p>\n<h2>Groupthink in the U.S. Government<\/h2>\n<div id=\"fs-idm16557840\" class=\"note psychology dig-deeper\" data-type=\"note\" data-has-label=\"true\" data-label=\"Dig Deeper\">\n<p>There have been several instances of groupthink in the U.S. government. One example occurred when the United States led a small coalition of nations to invade Iraq in March 2003. This invasion occurred because a small group of advisors and former President George W. Bush were convinced that Iraq represented a significant terrorism threat with a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction at its disposal. Although some of these individuals may have had some doubts about the credibility of the information available to them at the time, in the end, the group arrived at a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and represented a significant threat to national security. It later came to light that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, but not until the invasion was well underway. As a result, 6000 American soldiers were killed and many more civilians died. How did the Bush administration arrive at their conclusions?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-idp104000000\">Why does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, which makes it preventable. When the group is highly cohesive, or has a strong sense of connection, maintaining group harmony may become more important to the group than making sound decisions. If the group leader is directive and makes his opinions known, this may discourage group members from disagreeing with the leader. If the group is isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints, groupthink may be more likely. How do you know when groupthink is occurring?<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp37282880\">There are several symptoms of groupthink including the following:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-idp151727856\">\n<li>perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible\u2014believing it can do no wrong<\/li>\n<li>believing the group is morally correct<\/li>\n<li>self-censorship by group members, such as withholding information to avoid disrupting the group consensus<\/li>\n<li>the quashing of dissenting group members\u2019 opinions<\/li>\n<li>the shielding of the group leader from dissenting views<\/li>\n<li>perceiving an illusion of unanimity among group members<\/li>\n<li>holding stereotypes or negative attitudes toward the out-group or others\u2019 with differing viewpoints (Janis, 1972)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p id=\"fs-idm58989264\">Given the causes and symptoms of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can improve group decision making including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader withhold position statements until all group members have voiced their views, conducting research on all viewpoints, weighing the costs and benefits of all options, and developing a contingency plan (Janis, 1972; Mitchell &amp; Eckstein, 2009).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idp48752880\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Group Polarization<\/h1>\n<p id=\"fs-idp81624992\">Another phenomenon that occurs within group settings is group polarization. <span data-type=\"term\">Group polarization<\/span> (Teger &amp; Pruitt, 1967) is the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group. That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition. Group polarization explains many actions taken by groups that would not be undertaken by individuals. Group polarization can be observed at political conventions, when platforms of the party are supported by individuals who, when not in a group, would decline to support them. A more everyday example is a group\u2019s discussion of how attractive someone is. Does your opinion change if you find someone attractive, but your friends do not agree? If your friends vociferously agree, might you then find this person even more attractive?<\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-idp61706704\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"2\">\n<h2 data-type=\"title\">Social Facilitation<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-idp55784864\">Not all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcomes we have described. Sometimes being in a group situation can improve performance. <span data-type=\"term\">Social facilitation<\/span> occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled. Can you think of an example in which having an audience could improve performance? One common example is sports. Skilled basketball players will be more likely to make a free throw basket when surrounded by a cheering audience than when playing alone in the gym. However, there are instances when even skilled athletes can have difficulty under pressure. For example, if an athlete is less skilled or nervous about making a free throw, having an audience may actually hinder rather than help. In sum, social facilitation is likely to occur for easy tasks, or tasks at which we are skilled, but worse performance may occur when performing in front of others, depending on the task.<\/p>\n<div id=\"CNX_Psych_12_04_freethrow\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<figure style=\"width: 488px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2293\/2017\/08\/01160916\/CNX_Psych_12_04_freethrown.jpg\" alt=\"A photograph shows a basketball game.\" width=\"488\" height=\"390\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The attention of the crowd can motivate a skilled athlete. (credit: Tommy Gilligan\/USMA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idp131512912\" class=\"bc-section section\" data-depth=\"2\">\n<h2 data-type=\"title\">Social Loafing<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-idp131882256\">Another way in which a group presence can affect our performance is social loafing. <span data-type=\"term\">Social loafing<\/span> is the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau &amp; Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual\u2019s efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals become less motivated to perform well. For example, consider a group of people cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Some people will exert a great amount of effort, while others will exert little effort. Yet the entire job gets done, and it may not be obvious who worked hard and who didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idm39427696\">As a college student you may have experienced social loafing while working on a group project. Have you ever had to contribute more than your fair share because your fellow group members weren\u2019t putting in the work? This may happen when a professor assigns a group grade instead of individual grades. If the professor doesn\u2019t know how much effort each student contributed to a project, some students may be inclined to let more conscientious students do more of the work. The chance of social loafing in student work groups increases as the size of the group increases (Shepperd &amp; Taylor, 1999).<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-idp81251168\">Interestingly, the opposite of social loafing occurs when the task is complex and difficult (Bond &amp; Titus, 1983; Geen, 1989). Remember the previous discussion of choking under pressure? This happens when you perform a difficult task and your individual performance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the student work group, if your individual performance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do well, and thus less anxiety or physiological arousal (Latan\u00e9, Williams, &amp; Harkens, 1979). This puts you in a relaxed state in which you can perform your best, if you choose (Zajonc, 1965). If the task is a difficult one, many people feel motivated and believe that their group needs their input to do well on a challenging project (Jackson &amp; Williams, 1985). Given what you learned about social loafing, what advice would you give a new professor about how to design group projects? If you suggested that individuals\u2019 efforts should not be evaluated, to prevent the anxiety of choking under pressure, but that the task must be challenging, you have a good understanding of the concepts discussed in this section. Alternatively, you can suggest that individuals\u2019 efforts should be evaluated, but the task should be easy so as to facilitate performance. Good luck trying to convince your professor to only assign easy projects.<\/p>\n<table id=\"Table_12_04_01\" style=\"width: 100%;\" summary=\"This table has two columns and ten rows. The first row is a header row with these headings: \u201cTypes of social influence\u201d and \u201cDescription.\u201d Row 2 describes \u201cconformity\u201d as \u201cChanging your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group.\u201d Row 3 describes \u201cCompliance\u201d as \u201cGoing along with a request or demand.\u201d Row 4 describes \u201cNormative social influence\u201d as \u201cConformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group.\u201d Row 5 describes \u201cInformational social influence\u201d as \u201cConformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information.\u201d Row 6 describes \u201cObedience\u201d as \u201cChanging your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences.\u201d Row 7 describes \u201cGroupthink\u201d as \u201cGroup members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus.\u201d Row 8 describes \u201cGroup polarization\u201d as \u201cStrengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group.\u201d Row 9 describes \u201cSocial facilitation\u201d as \u201cImproved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone.\u201d Row 10 describes \u201cSocial loafing \u201d as \u201cExertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks.\u201d\">\n<caption><span data-type=\"title\">Types of Social Influence<\/span><\/caption>\n<colgroup>\n<col data-width=\"200\" \/>\n<col data-width=\"400\" \/><\/colgroup>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th data-align=\"center\">Type of Social Influence<\/th>\n<th data-align=\"center\">Description<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Conformity<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Changing your behavior to go along with the group even if you do not agree with the group<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Compliance<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Going along with a request or demand<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Normative social influence<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Informational social influence<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Conformity to a group norm prompted by the belief that the group is competent and has the correct information<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Obedience<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Changing your behavior to please an authority figure or to avoid aversive consequences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Groupthink<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Group members modify their opinions to match what they believe is the group consensus<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Group polarization<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Strengthening of the original group attitude after discussing views within a group<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Social facilitation<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Improved performance when an audience is watching versus when the individual performs the behavior alone<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\" data-type=\"term\">Social loafing<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Exertion of less effort by a person working in a group because individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group, thus causing performance decline on easy tasks<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm64832736\" class=\"summary\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Test Your Understanding<\/h1>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"h5p-193\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-193\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"193\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"Ch 12 Conformity, Compliance, Obedience Quiz 1\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Summary<\/h1>\n<p id=\"fs-idp60849280\">The power of the situation can lead people to conform, or go along with the group, even in the face of inaccurate information. Conformity to group norms is driven by two motivations, the desire to fit in and be liked and the desire to be accurate and gain information from the group. Authority figures also have influence over our behaviors, and many people become obedient and follow orders even if the orders are contrary to their personal values. Conformity to group pressures can also result in groupthink, or the faulty decision-making process that results from cohesive group members trying to maintain group harmony. Group situations can improve human behavior through facilitating performance on easy tasks, but inhibiting performance on difficult tasks. The presence of others can also lead to social loafing when individual efforts cannot be evaluated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm68336432\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Review Questions<\/h1>\n<div id=\"fs-idp60391584\" class=\"exercise\" data-type=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-idp126386400\" class=\"problem\" data-type=\"problem\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"h5p-194\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-194\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"194\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"Ch.12 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience (OS Questions)\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm14114768\" class=\"critical-thinking\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Critical Thinking Questions<\/h1>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<details>\n<summary>\u00a0 \u00a0 Describe how seeking outside opinions can prevent groupthink.<\/summary>\n<p>Outsiders can serve as a quality control by offering diverse views and views that may differ from the leader\u2019s opinion. The outsider can also remove the illusion of invincibility by having the group\u2019s action held up to outside scrutiny. An outsider may offer additional information and uncover information that group members withheld.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<details>\n<summary>\u00a0 \u00a0 Compare and contrast social loafing and social facilitation.<\/summary>\n<p>In social loafing individual performance cannot be evaluated; however, in social facilitation individual performance can be evaluated. Social loafing and social facilitation both occur for easy or well-known tasks and when individuals are relaxed.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-idm67778336\" class=\"personal-application\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h1 data-type=\"title\">Personal Application Questions<\/h1>\n<div id=\"fs-idp5455552\" class=\"exercise\" data-type=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-idp3607264\" class=\"problem\" data-type=\"problem\">\n<ol>\n<li id=\"fs-idm1243568\">Conduct a conformity study the next time you are in an elevator. After you enter the elevator, stand with your back toward the door. See if others conform to your behavior. Did your results turn out as expected?<\/li>\n<li>Most students adamantly state that they would never have turned up the voltage in the <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Milgram_experiment\">Milligram experiment<\/a>. Do you think you would have refused to shock the learner? Looking at your own past behavior, what evidence suggests that you would go along with the order to increase the voltage?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h1 data-type=\"glossary-title\">Glossary<\/h1>\n<div id=\"h5p-195\">\n<div class=\"h5p-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe id=\"h5p-iframe-195\" class=\"h5p-iframe\" data-content-id=\"195\" style=\"height:1px\" src=\"about:blank\" frameBorder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" title=\"Ch.12 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience (OS Glossary)\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h3>Media Attributions<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=-qlJqR4GmKw\">conformity<\/a>&#8221; by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCKHp9TUra8hjjqxnf9WyJ4w\">freescoring<\/a>. Standard YouTube License.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"author":90,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-171","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":164,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/90"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/171\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":458,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/171\/revisions\/458"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/164"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/171\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=171"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=171"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/h5ppsychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}