Social psychology
Chapter 9
Norms and conformity

Conformity to social norms

What are social norms?

Because people are profoundly influenced by others’ ideas and actions, interaction or communication causes group members’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to become more alike. Whether a judgment task is clear-cut or ambiguous, trivial or important, individual members’ views converge to form a social norm. Norms reflect the group’s generally accepted way of thinking, feeling, or acting.

Social norms are similar to attitudes in that both are mental representations of appropriate ways of thinking, feeling, and acting.
But whereas attitudes represent an individual’s positive or negative evaluations, norms reflect shared group evaluations of what is true or false, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate.

Descriptive social norms: agreed upon mental representations of what a group of people think, feel, or do.
Injunctive social norms: agreed upon mental representations of what a group of people should think, feel or do.
Most social norms have both qualities, because most people think, feel, or behave in a certain way that we think they should. When people act in the same way over and over again, they begin to think that they should act that way. Descriptive norms morph into injunctive norms.

Public versus private conformity

Conformity: the convergence of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, or behavior toward a social norm.
Occurs for two reasons:

• People believe that the group is right
• They want the group to accept and approve them.

Most of the time people privately accept group norms as their own, believing them to be correct and appropriate.
Sometimes people publicly go along with norms they do not privately accept.

Private conformity: private acceptance of social norms.
When people are truly persuaded that the group is right, when they willingly and privately accept group norms as their own beliefs, even if the group is no longer physically present.

Public conformity: overt behavior consistent with social norms that are not privately accepted.
Only a surface change.

We often privately conform to social norms without even realizing we are doing so.

Motivational functions of conformity norms

Expecting consensus

Private conformity comes about because we expect to see the world the same way similar others see it. We often assume that most other people share our opinions and preferences. Agreement with others increases our confidence that our views are correct, whereas disagreement undermines that certainty.

The key reason people conform to norms is that we expect everyone to see the world the same way.

• False consensus effect: the tendency to overestimate others’ agreement with one’s own opinions, characteristics, and behaviors.
  The more important the connection to those others is, the stronger this false consensus effect is.
• We usually expect to see the world the same way others do. When people make judgments or hold opinions that are consistent with what most people think, they do so more quickly and with more confidence, even when making judgments in private.

Norms fulfill mastery motives

Agreeing with others assures people that they are in contact with a common reality. When people privately conform because they believe a group’s norms reflect reality, the group has informational influence.

Norms are important because we need other people to help us construct an appropriate view of reality.
Consensus tells us something about reality.
Descriptive norms are such powerful guides to reality that we are often unaware of their influence and take them for granted.

If we believe that group norms reflect reality, then conforming to them satisfies our need for mastery. We believe the group has more knowledge than we do, so accepting their input makes sense if we want to make better decisions.
Informational influence: the process by which group norms are privately accepted to achieve or maintain mastery of reality. Because they believe a group’s norms reflect reality.
Particularly when the stakes are high.
Individuals who are strongly motivated to acquire a clear and accurate view of the world conform more to others.

Once an adequate consensus had formed, adding to the size of that consensus has not further effect.
The exact size of the consensus needed for maximal influence can differ form one judgment to another, but people share a good idea of what the burden of proof for a particular judgment should be.

As the size of the dissenting minority increases, the majority’s opinion seems more and more open to question, and is less likely to be adopted. When there is no longer a consensus about reality, the group loses its power to persuade.

Disagreement undermines our confidence in our view of reality. Thus, there is a potential for informational influence whenever people find themselves at odds with others with whom they expect to agree. Under these conditions, agreeing with the group consensus helps re-establish our confidence that we are indeed in touch with reality.

Norms fulfill connectedness motives

Agreeing with others also gives people the feeling of belonging with others. A group has normative influence when members conform to it to attain a positive and valued social identity.

Normative influence: the process by which group norms are privately accepted to achieve or maintain connectedness and a valued social identity.
Satisfies our needs for connectedness because consensus provides and expresses our identity and values.
People typically adopt group norms whenever they are reminded of their membership in a group that is important to them.

There are many connectedness benefits of conformity to group norms.

• Makes people feel good
• Those who endorse group norms are admired by fellow group members and accorded more influence in the group

Being out of step with group norms undermines the secure social identity we derive from belonging to a group.
Conforming to group norms helps maintain and reconfirm our sense of identity.

Whose consensus? Me and mine norms are the ones that count

People expect to agree with those who share attributes relevant to the judgment at hand. In-groups often serve as reference groups, and people are much more influenced by in-group tan out-group others. Other in-group members do not have to be present for conformity to occur, but having other group members present increases conformity even more. The more highly member identify with the group, the greater the reference group’s impact.

Reference group: those people accepted as an appropriate source of information for a judgment because they share the attributes relevant for making that judgment.
The reference group to turn to depends on the kind of judgment or evaluation you are making.
The reference groups for a value-laden or opinion-based judgment, people usually expect to agree with others who share their pastimes, tastes and values. If others don’t appear to have the qualifications for consensus on value-laden issues, their opinions hold no sway.

Because of all the things we share with them, our long-standing memberships in national, ethnic, religious, age, or political in-groups can provide ready-made reference groups.
Because they are like us and liked by us, we often use in-group as reference groups, regardless of the judgments we make.
We expect to agree with members of the groups to which we belong.
But we don’t expect to agree with out-group members.

People are far more affected by social influence form in-group than from out-group members.

Persuasive appeals from in-group members are treated differently than those from out-group members.
The in-group membership of the message source can act as a persuasion heuristic. Especially if motivation or opportunity to process are in short supply.
Because the information they provide is usually important to group memberships, persuasive appeals from in-group members are typically processed more systematically than appeals from out-group members. The more important the group, the more processing the in-group message receives.
Messages from out-group members have little impact, regardless of argument quality.

The power of persuasive appeals from the in-group shows that you do not need to have other group members present to conform to group norms. The group is part of the individual. Conformity can occur whenever group belonging becomes salient. But having other group members present can increase conformity to group norms even more.

Mastery, connectedness, or Me and mine?

Although particular circumstances can make one motive more important than another, agreeing with in-groups fulfills mastery, connectedness, and me and mine motives.

Particular circumstances can tip the balance in motives for conformity toward mastery or connectedness concerns.
Mastery concerns are particularly closely associated with descriptive norms.
Connectedness concerns are particularly associated with injunctive norms.

Most of the time, agreement with in-group others fulfills all three motives simultaneously.

Adherence to in-group norms on a day-to-day basis provides us with motivational benefits.

Need for mastery → informational influence
Need for connectedness → normative influence
Need to value me and mine → influence from valued in-group
Leads all to private conformity

How groups form norms: processes of social influence

Group polarization: going to normative extremes

When a majority of group members initially favor one side of the issue, communication and interaction usually move the group to an even more extreme position.

Group polarization: the process by which a group’s initial average position becomes more extreme following group interaction.

Explaining polarized norm formation

When people process superficially, merely relying on other’s positions can produce polarization of group norms as undecided or moderate group members move toward the group position and try to show that they are good group members.
When people process systematically, both other’s positions and arguments work together to polarize group norms. Majority arguments are numerous, receive more discussion, seem more compelling and are presented more persuasively.

Superficial processing: relying on other’s positions

People often know the group’s position, but not why they came to such a position.
Many overt and subtle cues can signal or communicate what the group thinks.

• Group interactions often open which some exchange of views, during which the group member’s positions are directly voiced.
• People can guess the group norm from who the members of the group are.
• People can reveal their preferences by the kinds of questions they ask of by their body language.

In cases like these, people can use the group position alone as a guide to what their own position should be.
Consensus is used as a heuristic.
Hearing what people think before a discussion begins makes group members less likely to pay attention to the information later exchanged.

How superficial reliance on consensus heuristic leads to extreme positions:

• When undecided or dissenting members of a group adopt the majority consensus, the group’s average opinion moves toward the extreme
• Heuristic reliance on other’s views can lead to extreme positions because people often want to be the best possible members of their group. Social comparison may prompt a speedy adoption of a more extreme position so that we can again become above average on important decisions within the group.

Even when other’s positions are all we know, our desire for mastery and our wish to be valued by important others encourage us to move toward, or even beyond, the majority’s view.
Group members who hold the majority may move even farther toward the extreme.

Systematic processing: attending to both positions and arguments

When the evaluations that a group makes are important or affect the group directly, group members shift their processing to high gear.
They consider not just the preferences of others but in addition they supporting arguments and evidence.
Systematic processing makes group polarization more likely.

• Majority arguments are numerous
• Majority arguments are discussed more
• Majority arguments seem more compelling
• Majority argument are presented more compellingly

Undermining true consensus

When consensus seeking goes awry

Consensus implies that opinions are valid, but this inference is true only when consensus is achieved in the right way. A consensus cannot be trusted if its arises from unthinking reliance on other’s opinions, contamination by shared biases, or public conformity. Such a consensus offers only the illusion of mastery and connectedness and can lead to situations of pluralistic ignorance, where everyone is publicly conforming to a norm that nobody privately endorses.

Consensus without consideration: unthinking reliance on consensus

If we merely rely on the presence of consensus, we can be influenced by an unreliable or even a manipulated consensus.

Part of the strength of a consensus is that if different people come to the same conclusion after reviewing the available evidence, the conclusion is more likely to be valid. But if people skip carefully consideration of the evidence, then the consensus they contribute to is not trustworthy.

Consensus without independence: contamination

The idea that a consensus provides reality insurance rests on an assumption: we think we can trust the consensus because multiple individuals considered the evidence independently and from diverse perspectives, and came to the same conclusion.
People understand that shared biases might contaminate group decisions.

One one hand, we trust a consensus when independent and separate individuals endorse it.
On the other hand, we really expect to agree only with those who share our characteristics.

Consensus without acceptance: public conformity

The most dangerous threat to the ideal of consensus formation is public conformity.

Pluralistic ignorance: occurs when everyone publicly conforms to an apparent norm that no one in fact privately accepts.

Consensus seeking at it worst: groupthink

Groupthink occurs when groups become more concerned with reaching consensus than with reaching consensus in a way that ensures its validity. Groupthink can be avoided by safeguarding consideration of alternatives, independence of views, and private acceptance.

Groupthink: group decision making that is impaired by the drive to reach consensus regardless of how the consensus is formed.
Typically occurs when groups feel overwhelming pressure of agreement to maintain a positive view of the group in the face of threat.

Groupthink processes produce an illusion of unanimity, rather than true consensus. Pluralistic ignorance reigns.

Remedies for faulty consensus seeking

The solution lies in making sure that consensus is reached the right way.

• Groups need to engage in open inquiry
• Carefully processing available evidence and alternatives
• Encourage dissenting perspectives and points of view

To ensure that consensus is not contaminated by shared biases, group membership can be intentionally selected for diversity.
To reduce pressures toward public conformity that contribute to apparent consensus, public votes should be the exception rather than the rule.
The role of the leader should be minimized in favor of equally valued contributions from all members, and the voicing of doubts and objections should be encouraged.

The key is to ensure that all view are thoroughly considered when groups form a consensus.

Minority influence: the value of dissent

Successful minority influence

Minority vies can sway the majority. To be influential, the minority must offer an alternative consensus, remain consistent, strike the right balance between similarity to and difference from the majority, and promote systematic processing.

Offering an alternative consensus

The main source of a minority’s power is tis potential to undermine the majority’s consensus and to promote an alternative view.
The alternative view must be a consensus in its own right. It must be supported by more than one person. It must also be be presented in such a way that the majority takes it seriously.

• Minorities are most influential when they agree among themselves.
• Minorities are most influential when they are consistent

When a minority successfully challenges the majority view, the effect can extend beyond the single immediate issue, pushing majority group members to be more open-minded in the future.

Negotiating similarity and difference

In-group minority views have much greater social influence success than out-group members with the same views.
Confirming one’s in-group credentials by first agreeing with the majority before dissenting is a particularly effective way to promote minority influence.

Promoting systematic processing

When minorities manage their dissent effectively, other group members are more likely to systematically process their arguments. Their plausible alternative creates uncertainty about reality and that stimulates thinking among majority members. The majority seeks additional information about the issue and processes it in greater depth.

Processes of minority and majority influence

By and large, majorities and minorities influence others by the same processes. Both majorities and minorities can satisfy concerns about mastery and connectedness, encourage heuristic or systematic processing of the evidence, and elicit public compliance or private acceptance.

Beyond minority influence: using norms to strengthen consensus

The best way to promote effective group norm formation and consensus seeking is to set up norms that make group members more critical thinkers as a group rather than as individuals. When group members are united behind norms of seeking consensus with systematic consideration of alternatives, independence from contamination, and the conviction of private acceptance, the desire for mastery and for connectedness work together to produce a valid consensus.