Social influence is a broad category. Social psychologists distinguish between two major forms of social infl uence: normative infulence and informational infulence. Let us consider each of these in turn.
Normative infl uence involves going along with the crowd in order to be liked and accepted. As we have seen throughout this book, humans have a fundamental need to belong to social groups. Being accepted and included improves one’s chances for survival (and improves life in many other ways). However, there is a long road to acceptance within the group. To live together, people usually need to agree on common beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that reduce ingroup threats and act for the common good. Th erefore, people learn to conform to their group’s rules. Th e more we see others behaving in a certain way or making particular decisions, the more we feel inclined to follow suit. Th is happens even when we are in a group of complete strangers: we will go along with the others to avoid looking like a fool.
The studies conducted by Solomon Asch illustrate the power of normative influence. Asch asked participants to judge which of three lines matched a comparison line. In some studies, the participant was asked last in a group of confederates, all of whom had been instructed to give the same wrong answer. Asch found that many participants went along with the confederates and gave the wrong answer, even though they could plainly see it was wrong, rather than deviate from the group.
In some studies, Asch varied the discrepancy between the standard line and the comparison lines to discover the point at which the error made by the confederates was so glaring that no participants would conform. Th ese manipulations did not eliminate the effect: Participants went along with the group even when the group made fl agrant errors. To be accepted by the group was more important to participants than to be correct.
In another study, one of the confederates was a “dissenter” who always gave the correct answer. The dissenter reduced conformity by about one-fourth. In addition, participants who gave the correct answer reported feelings of warmth and closeness toward the dissenter.
Asch wondered whether the dissenter reduced conformity because he was accurate or because he deviated from the other confederates. So Asch conducted another study in which the dissenter disagreed with the other confederates but chose another incorrect answer. Half the time the dissenter made a moderate error, choosing a line that was incorrect but not too far off; the other half of the time the dissenter made an extreme error. The results showed that when the dissenter made a moderate error, conformity decreased by about one-third; when the participants did make errors, most were moderate rather than extreme. When the dissenter made an extreme error, conformity decreased by almost threefourths! Furthermore, when participants did make errors—and this occurred on only 9% of trials—all of the errors were moderate, none extreme. Thus, the extreme dissenter had a remarkably freeing eff ect on participants. Th e implication is that people feel considerable pressure to conform to a group if everyone agrees, but if there is any sort of disagreement among group members, then people become willing to stand up for what they believe.
When people deviate from group norms, they may pay a heavy price, including social rejection. Social rejection can be painful. Asch found that people would agree with the group, even when they knew the group was wrong, rather than suff er social rejection. Other research has shown that people who deviate from the group do indeed run a heightened risk of being rejected. For example, in an early study conducted by Stanley Schachter (1951), groups of eight individuals discussed the case of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. Each group consisted of fi ve real participants and three confederates. One confederate, the “deviant,” adopted the extreme position of punishing Rocco severely and did not deviate from this position during group discussion. A second confederate, the “slider,” initially adopted the extreme position of punishing Rocco but then “slid” toward the position adopted by most group members.
A third confederate, the “mode,” adopted the position of most group members. At the end of the group discussion, the experimenter told everyone that a smaller group was needed for the next group discussion, so that the group needed to vote one member out. Most groups voted out the deviant. A review of similar studies showed that groups are quick to reject deviants or nonconformists. Rejection is more likely when there are only one or two nonconformists than when there are many nonconformists.
