PSY 3790 Module 4 Social Influence and Group Psychology Paper: Conformity, Culture and Social Loafing Example

Following the First Voice: Conformity and Loafing in a Tenants' Meeting

Student Name

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Thomas Edison State University

PSY-3790: Social Psychology

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Following the First Voice: Conformity and Loafing in a Tenants' Meeting

Introduction

At our tenants' association meetings, I have noticed two patterns. When a respected longtime resident speaks first in favor of a proposal, the rest of the room usually agrees; when she opposes it, the proposal fails. And although twenty people volunteer for committees, the work of collecting complaints, writing letters and calling the city falls on the same three people. This module examines how people influence one another and how groups perform, and this paper applies that research to our meetings.

Types of Social Influence

Conformity is changing one's behavior or beliefs to match those of others. Psychologists distinguish informational influence, in which people conform because they believe others know better, from normative influence, in which people conform to be accepted or avoid rejection. Compliance is responding to a direct request, and obedience is following orders from an authority.

The Asch Experiments

Asch (1956) had small groups of college men pick which of three comparison lines was as long as a reference line, a task so easy that people working alone almost never erred. In each group, all but one member were confederates instructed to give the same wrong answer on certain trials. The real participant, answering near the end, faced a unanimous majority contradicting the evidence of his eyes. Across trials, participants agreed with the incorrect majority about a third of the time. About a quarter never conformed, while some conformed on most trials. When one confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped sharply, showing the power of even one ally.

Conformity Across Cultures and Time

Bond and Smith (1996) pooled 133 studies in 17 countries that used Asch's line task. Conformity was higher when the majority was larger, when it consisted of people the participant identified with and when participants were women. American samples conformed less in the 1990s than in the 1950s. Across countries, conformity was higher in collectivist cultures, which emphasize group harmony, than in individualist cultures. The authors suggested that conformity reflects cultural values as well as individual psychology.

Social Loafing

Groups do not always perform better than individuals. Karau and Williams (1993) meta-analyzed 78 studies of social loafing, in which people try less hard as part of a group than on their own. Social loafing appeared across many tasks and populations. It shrank when each person's share of the work could be seen and judged, when the work mattered to the person, when coworkers were friends or a valued team, when they expected coworkers to perform poorly and when they came from collectivist cultures. Women and people from Eastern cultures loafed less on average.

Changing How We Decide

Asch's findings suggest that votes may reflect early, visible opinions more than residents' private views. We changed procedures so that residents first write their views on index cards, which are read aloud anonymously, before discussion begins. For important votes, we use paper ballots. We also ask a different person to raise concerns about each proposal, ensuring that dissent is voiced, consistent with Asch's finding that a single dissenter frees others to disagree.

Cultural Respect

Bond and Smith's findings remind me that deference to respected elders is partly cultural and can be valuable. The goal is not to silence experienced residents but to make sure that agreement reflects real views. The longtime resident whose voice carries so much now agreed to speak after others when she chairs discussions.

Reducing Loafing

Karau and Williams's findings suggest that vague committee sign-ups invite loafing. Each volunteer now takes a specific, named task, such as "survey floors 3 and 4 by the 15th," and progress is reported at each meeting. Volunteers work in pairs with neighbors they know, and we explain how each task connects to getting repairs done, making the work meaningful.

Groupthink

When a cohesive group values agreement over critical evaluation, it can fall into groupthink, ignoring warning signs and alternatives. Inviting outside perspectives, such as a tenant lawyer, and assigning someone to argue the opposing side can protect against it.

Obedience and Authority

Milgram's studies, in which many participants kept delivering shocks they thought were dangerous when instructed by an experimenter, show how strongly people defer to perceived authority. In our building, residents sometimes accept a manager's word that a repair is not required without checking the housing code, which is why we now bring copies of the code to meetings.

Minority Influence

A consistent minority can also change a group's views over time, especially when its members appear confident and principled rather than rigid. Several of our successful campaigns began with a few persistent residents whose steady arguments eventually persuaded the majority.

Evaluating the Changes

We will compare attendance, the number of residents who speak and the share of committee tasks completed on time before and after the new procedures.

Diffusion in Committees

Large committees spread responsibility thin, so we cut ours to four or five members each, a size at which every person's absence is noticed.

Checking for Groupthink

Before final votes, the chair now asks, "What might we be missing?" and waits for an answer.

Limits

Asch's participants were American college men in the 1950s. Laboratory tasks differ from community decisions. Meta-analyses combine studies with different designs.

Conclusion

Asch showed how strongly people conform to a unanimous majority and how much a single ally helps, Bond and Smith showed that conformity varies across cultures and time and Karau and Williams showed that people loaf in groups unless their contributions are identifiable and meaningful. Anonymous input, assigned dissent and named tasks have made our meetings more honest and our committees more productive.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681