NSI and ISI

Conformity is when you change your behaviour to do something more similar to what others are doing.  It can be divided into two types (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955):

• Normative social influence - going along with others in order to fit in
• Informational social influence - going along with others because we don't know what to do

This depends on whether you have a clear idea of how to act in a situation.  If you know how to act but choose to do what others are doing instead, then it is an example of normative social influence.  It is so called because you are going along with a social norm, rather than your own choice.

Situations where you don't have a clue what to do - such as how to use the public transport system in a foreign country - and choose to copy others, are examples of informational social influence - so called, because you look to others for information.

Research into NSI and ISI

The most famous research study in this area of Psychology is the 'length of lines' study by Asch (1955).  Given a simple task of comparing the length of lines, Asch's participants gave the wrong answer because they didn't want stand out from the group.  This is an example of NSI.  A key question to ask is whether they knew the right answer, and what they would have done when alone.

Jenness (1932)'s study of estimates of the number of beans in a jar is a great example of ISI.  Here, people didn't know the right answer.  They wanted to give the right answer, so they were influence by the guesses of other people.

Conformity is more prevalent than many people might think (or admit to themselves), and the reason it doesn't get more attention is that it is usually not a problem. In fact, it can be very helpful. If people all stand on the same side of an escalator, it helps others to walk past.  People are, rightly, concerned when conformity leads to crimes or substance abuse, but the basic underlying processes of NSI and ISI happen to us all on a daily basis.

-> Read how this applies to characters in fiction.

References
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H.B. (1955).  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636.
Jenness, A. (1932). The role of discussion in changing opinion regarding matter of fact. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 279-296.

Gamson, Fireman and Rytina (1982)

‘Encounters with unjust authority’

Gamson, Fireman and Rytina (1982) aimed to test the hypothesis that a group is more likely to rebel than a lone individual. They set up a situation where it appeared to participants that they were being manipulated into signing statements which would then be used by an oil company in a legal case. In their experiment 16 out of 33 groups totally refused to do what was expected of them and in a further 9 groups the majority of group members refused.

Participants in the study were given plenty of breaks where they were able to mix freely with one another and discuss and clarify the situation for one another.

Having an opportunity for discussion can make a
huge difference to obedience levels.

The researchers observed that members of the group were having to decide between the urge to obey and the urge to conform to the group norm: many were uncertain at this point, delaying a decision as long as possible. Indeed, some group members went along with the experimenters and signed the statement they were being asked to sign, but then crossed out their signatures or tore up the statement when they realised that others were not going to sign.

It can be concluded that groups are more likely to resist obedience than individuals, provided they have a chance to discuss the implications freely with other group members.

Image by smannion.

Reference

Gamson, W.B., Fireman, B. and Rytina, S. (1982).  Encounters with unjust authority.  Hounwood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Maccoby & Jacklin (1980)

In previous studies of gender-difference studies, the researchers had reported gender differences in four key areas: verbal, visio-spatial, arithmetic and aggression.

Maccoby & Jacklin (1980) looked at how differences in aggression develop.  They found that across 32 observational studies, boys were found to be more aggressive in 24, and no difference was reported in the remaining 8.

Contrary to the popular idea that boys are encouraged by parents to be aggressive, the researchers reported that punishment levels were the same for boys and girls - in other words, parents were did not treat aggression by boys more leniently.  Animal studies found greater aggression in males of most primate species including chimpanzees, and made the link to biological factors such as levels of the hormone testosterone - higher in males.

These gender differences are not apparent in early infancy, emerging at age 3-4.  This developmental change points to the possibility that boys' emerging concept of male identity could prompts greater aggression, especially in male company, the researchers concluded.  This may depend partly on their life experience of aggressive role models, as shown in the classic Bandura et al (1961) study.

Tieger (1980) dismissed the effect of biology on aggression, stating that the comparisons to other primates have been overstated.  He believes that much 'aggression' in male children may be due to their greater activity level being mistaken for aggression, and suggests that the reason the aggression difference increases with age is due to learning.

References
Bandura, A. Ross, D. and Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.
Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin C.N. (1980).  Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise.  Child Development, 51(4), 964-980.
Tieger, T. (1980). On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression.  Child Development, 51(4), 943-963.

A link between creativity and schizophrenia?

It has been reported by several studies that artists are more likely to suffer from schizotypy - a pattern of traits similar to schizophrenia but much less harmful. Mental illness can be totally debilitating, so how is it possible that people with unusual psychological symptoms go on to become some of our most productive artists, writers and political leaders?

Salvador Dali, Soft Construction With Boiled Beans
 (Premonition of Civil War),1936, oil on canvas.

Nettle (2005) found that while "artistic creatives and psychiatric patients share a tendency to unusual ideas and experiences," they have a better ability than psychiatric patients to control and integrate these experiences. It may be that in a creative role, the ability to spontaneously generate ideas and to have an unusual way of looking at things is actually helpful. This won't be true of every job - Nettle (2005) found that in comparison to artists, mathematicians had low levels of schizotypy.

For students of approaches to psychology and of atypical behaviour, this relates to an ongoing debate over whether mental illnesses occur in an all-or-nothing way (the way we either have a physical ailment, like a broken leg, or we don't) or if they are better viewed as lying along a continuum, from a little to a lot. Curiously, schizotypy has also been linked to dominance of the brain's right hemisphere.

Reference

Nettle, D. (2005). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 876–890.

Classic study: LaPiere (1934) on discrimination

Will a person's attitude towards other races always be matched by their actions?

LaPiere (1934) wanted to find out about prejudice towards towards the ethnic Chinese community in America in the 1930s, at a time of strong prejudice following large-scale immigration.  Previous to the research, he had entered a hotel in a small Californian town with some concern about whether they would be accommodated, but obtained rooms with ease.  Some months later he telephoned the hotel to ask if they would accommodate ‘an important Chinese gentleman’ and were told a definite ‘No.  This event stimulated the study.

For two years he travelled around the USA with his wife and a colleague, both of whom were ‘charming and personable’, and were also easily identified as being of Chinese origin.  Both spoke unaccented American English.

On a 10,000 mile trip, they were received at 66 hotels and ‘tourist homes’ and rejected only once; they were served in 184 restaurants and cafes, receiving good service in 72 of them.

The Chinese-Americans made the reservations or orders, but LaPiere had not told them the research aims, and instead invented a number of ruses to be absent at the vital moment.  LaPiere concluded that people responded more to appearance and self-confidence rather than race.

Overall, little discrimination was found.  However, 6 months later a questionnaire was sent out to every one of the establishments visited, asking “Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?”.  Out of 251, 128 replied.  92% said ‘no’ to the question.

This study showed that our actions don't always match out intentions.  Although it took place a long time ago, this concept is still relevant today.  Nowadays, we might be concerned about the opposite pattern - people who claim to be unprejudice, but don't always act on this.

The study is limited in several ways, however.  There is no guarantee that the members of staff who replied to questionnaires (possibly management) were the same as the ones who served the guests.  There was also no investigation into why people made the choices that they did e.g. when answering the questionnaire.