Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
One of the first tests of this theory was a reversal of Asch conformity experiments by adding two confederates in a six person group, and arranging for them to systematically disagree with the majority decision. Instead of lines, the participants judged (aloud) the color and brightness of a series of 36 colored slides (all were blue with ...
The need for a positive relationship with the people around leads us to conformity. [4] This fact often leads to people exhibiting public compliance—but not necessarily private acceptance—of the group's social norms in order to be accepted by the group. [5] Social norms refers to the unwritten rules that govern social behavior. [6]
Conformity is the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behaviors in ways that are consistent with group norms. [16] Norms are implicit, specific rules shared by a group of individuals on how they should behave. [17] People may be susceptible to conform to group norms because they want to gain acceptance from their group. [17]
There are three processes of attitude change as defined by Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman in a 1958 paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. [1] The purpose of defining these processes was to help determine the effects of social influence: for example, to separate public conformity (behavior) from private acceptance (personal belief).
Uncertainty is a major factor that encourages the use of social proof. One study found that when evaluating a product, consumers were more likely to incorporate the opinions of others through the use of social proof when their own experiences with the product were ambiguous, leaving uncertainty as to the correct conclusion that they should make.
A power strategy that ultimately leads to private acceptance and long-lasting change (for example, information power) may be difficult to implement, and consume considerable time and energy. In the short term, complete reliance on information power might even be dangerous (for example, telling a small child not to run into the street unattended).
The theory accommodates Thorstein Veblen, Vilfredo Pareto and Joseph Schumpeter. Takada sometimes referred to the theory as a second order approximation, as introducing a theory of power relations into the materialism of economics was seen as one step closer to a true picture of socio-economic relationships.
The return potential model and game theory provide a slightly more economic conceptualization of norms, suggesting individuals can calculate the cost or benefit behind possible behavioral outcomes. Under these theoretical frameworks, choosing to obey or violate norms becomes a more deliberate, quantifiable decision.