CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL PRESSURE AND MECHANISMS OF ATTITUDE CHANGE

In a study of how susceptible people are to social pressure ASCH had subjects complete a task that was VERY EASY. When subjects were alone, they gave the correct response 100% of the time. In a different condition with the same task, 11 confederates (assistants of the experimenter posing as subjects) were asked to give their responses out loud before the real subjects turn--all 11 confederates gave the same WRONG answer. When it came the subjects turn in this condition, only 68% of the subjects gave the correct response. In a separate condition 1 of the 11 confederates gave the correct response and the remaining confederates gave the same WRONG answer. In this last condition 90% of the subjects gave the correct answer. Conclusion: people are very susceptible to social pressure. In debriefing, subjects giving the wrong answer often stated that they BELIEVED that the answer they gave was correct.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS PROPOSED AS A MECHANISM OF HOW SOCIAL INFLUENCE CAN PRODUCE ATTITUDE CHANGES.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is a theory of Leon Festinger’s stating that a state of dissonance (which is uncomfortable) is produced when there is an inconsistency between (A) two beliefs, or (B) between a belief and a behavior. For example, if I believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and I smoke cigarettes, then dissonance should occur. I am then motivated to reduce the dissonance by either stopping smoking or by changing my attitude about the smoking-cancer link (“The research is bad” “The super-light, low tar cigarettes I smoke couldn’t possibly cause cancer”). A study evaluating the mechanism of cognitive dissonance was done by:

FESTINGER AND CARLSMITH, who had subjects come into a research lab and engage in a dull, boring task for 1 hr. One group of subjects (the controls) then rated the enjoyment of the task on a scale of DULL (-5) through NEUTRAL (0) to EXCITING (+5). The remaining subjects were then deceived by the experimenter, who told them the following. “I would like you to help me out. I have to leave, and the other researcher just called in sick. Would you run the next subject for me? This study is really about the effects of expectancy on the rating of a task. You were in the control condition because we gave you no expectations about how enjoyable the task would be. The next subject is in the positive expectancy condition. All you have to do is talk to the next subject for a few minutes and explain to the subject how enjoyable the task is. I’m willing to pay you.”

Here there was another manipulation in the experiment; subjects were either offered $1 or $20 (today’s inflation would make these amount much greater). Subjects who agreed to lie to the next subject (who was really a confederate) then rated the enjoyment of the task on the -5 to +5 scale. According to the theory, the greatest dissonance should be produced in the $1 group (“Why am I lying to this person for so little money), less dissonance should be produced in the $20 group because they have a justification in being well-paid. Dissonance should produce attitude change in the $1 group, and it did. The $1 group actually rated the task as mildly enjoyable.

RATINGS

CONTROL -.45

$1 +1.35

$20 -.05

In a different study ZIMBARDO used a dissonance manipulation to get army reservists to rate the eating of fried grasshoppers as enjoyable and tasty!!

Cognitive dissonance is a rather indirect method of social influence that produces more lasting attitude changes because people subject to dissonance manipulations have the illusion of “making a free choice” in changing their attitudes. This can be contrasted with more direct, coercive methods of social influence that generally have only a short term impact, if any. When people feel coerced they are more likely to rebel against the coercion because of a lack of “Free Choice”. This is called REACTANCE.

</pre>