Norms 2

Large number of ppl at common place with common goals

crowd with (non normative) negative or violent behavior (they have their own norms)

o   In Crowds higher anonymity-> less fear of consequences(incl.Norms?) , high group identity -> anti- social behavior

o   De-individuation leads to

• more normative beahvior it, whether pro- or antisocial depends on the norms that are triggered

• reduced self observation/control

§  Exemplar Study;

·        Ppl shocking ppl in Lab coats (Johnson&Downing)

o   Deindividuated ppl in Nursing Robe shocked less…

o   Deindividuated ppl in kkk-Robe shocked slightly more than identifiable  equal

o   Crowd situations trigger ambivalence (most people are not used to crowds and not sure how to behave)

-> Milling (speaking to other crowd members for orientation, figure out whats going on), Keynoters(Resolve ambivalence cuz they seem to know whats going on) influence emerging Norm

-> collective action

§  Milling takes to long to explain rapid changes in crowd behavior

o   Crowds ->Self categorization/stereotyping to fit and become part/identify as of the group + Social Context ( action/reaction of other groups) -> Collective Action

§  -> ppl identifying a lot with group+ Social context threatening this Group = aggressive behavior

• Decreasing physical distance = Higher dropout rates (especially around 150 V)

o   In the same room; 40% followed up to highest

o   Voice feedback instead of no feedback makes those who drop out drop out earlier but the same amount (65%) follow through all the way

o   If other people have to provide the shock and Participant only decides whether one is given or not ->  less dropout (92%)

•   If peers rebel higher dropout (10%)

• Legitimate authority

• Agentic state (low support)

  • Identification based Followership

• Accessibility of Norm

• Entraptment

·        shifting responsibility onto authority figure  (I did not make this decision, I’m just an agent of authority)

o   low empirical support,

o   Re-interpretation(Reicher,Haslam u Smith);

• Mecanism; Identification-based followership identification w someone/something and their goals (eg. the science community) persuades people to obey (identified more with science than with the “victim”)

·        taught through socialization to obey authoritative figure and assume legitimacy of authority) -> solves normative conflict

o    Reducing the subjective credibility/authority of the situations = decreasing amount follow through

o   If authoritative figure starts questioning its orders no one follows through

o   Experimenter present -> higher obedience

Gradual increase of task difficulty/normative makes it harder to drop out -> “Foot in the Door technique” cognitive dissonance if suddenly drop out)

• Early Resistance is Key Predictor

• Reactance

• Systematic Processing

• Norms Against Norms

o   initial desire to do the opposite/ Disobey -> restoring freedom of action/choice )

§  Needs perception of;

·        Reduced freedom

·        Inappropriateness or illegitimacy of norm

è Will not work for internalized (Privately accepted) Norms

§  Taking time (Cooling off-> reduces stress of normative pressure)

§  Elaborate information processing;

·        Search for all(ternative) norms and attitudes

·        Recognize beneficiaries of Norms

Question social roles and definitions of situation

§  Still react quick to avoid dissonance

o   Form alternative norm of resistance

§  Find allies -> create social identity

o   Special type of disobedience. PPl report Corruption or unethical practice within their organization.

§  Rare because of fear of being cast out

§  Willingness to report declines the more training a md sudent has

• Offering alternative consensus

·        Rather minority group than individual (+ growing slowly)

·        Consistency within group, across situations and time

è Usually no immediate effect, Long term effect not really getting specific points but rather general open mindedness and encouragement of resistance

• Negotiation of similarity & difference

·        Establishing shared views and similaritys and agreement on most important issues

·        Dissagreement only in few issues

è Makes more relatable -> disagreement cant just be attributed as “we are just too different”

• Stimulate systematic information processing

·        Framing as plausible alternative (it’s common sense)

·        Stimulate information search and more complex decision processes

è Leads to private acceptance -> long term effects

o   Both majoritys and minoritys can influence because they create conflict, it is resoved

•   Majoritys; comparison between self and majority

  • -> (public) compliance on direct topics (no further consideration of issue 

•   Minoritys; validation process of conflict and its messages

  • -> no public conformity but internal conversion and/or indirect attitude

o   If the source of an information (majority, minority) is known beforehand it affects processing

o   Low elaboration/motivation

•  superficial processing of both -> majority(popularity) heuristic

o   Medium elaboration/motivation

•  majority -> superficial processing,

•  minority -> systematic processing (relevance argument strength)

o   High elaboration

• Systematic processing of both -> argument strength

• Majoritys; finding out a majority supports already formed attitude = increased confidence in attitude

• Minority; processing ifos from them leads to more persistant attitudes

o   Majority Influence: causes stress -> narrow attention focus, replicating results of majority (convergent thinking)

o   Minority Influence; (inspired?)-> wider attention focus, “über den tassenrand hinaus schauen”, creative new solutions (divergent thinking)

-        Ingroup minoritys have a more direct impact than outgroup minoritys

o   Disagreement with someone deemed as similar creates uncertainty

o   Behavior influenced by norms AND personal attitudes

o    -> who wins depends on ;

§  Accessibility

§  Individual differences (self-awareness vs – monitoring)

§  Cultural differences

§  (If equal then tendency towards Norms)