EDP5285-01
SPRING 2018
PROFESSOR SUSAN CAROL
LOSH
| GROUP PROCESSES |
|
GROUP INFLUENCE, POWER, CONFORMITY AND COMPLIANCE |
|
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Conformity is relatively cheap. |
AND...in scenes from real life...
| Dear Prudie,
One of my co-workers has lost all of his hair due to cancer treatments, and someone came up with the idea that we should all shave our heads in solidarity when he returns to work in a few weeks. A few guys have already shaved their heads, and they, along with several others who plan to follow suit, are laying one hell of a guilt trip on the rest of us to shave our heads, too. I have absolutely no desire to do so, and while several others on staff say they don't want to, the guilt trip is working, and none of them wants to risk offending the co-worker when he returns. I don't understand why he would feel any better looking at a dozen bald guys. I've already dusted off my résumé, but changing jobs won't be easy thanks to the economy, and I'm not the kind of guy who just runs away when it's time to take a stand. I don't want a confrontation, but I didn't pick this battle, and I fully expect that I'll need to find a less toxic place to work because of my decision. —Not a Shorn Sheep Dear Not Shorn, I understand the impulse behind the head-shaving gesture, and maybe your ailing co-worker will be both moved and amused. It's also possible that he'll feel uncomfortable and self-conscious. But surely he wouldn't want every male in the office to be bullied into going along with the show of "solidarity." You have every right to say, "What you're doing is great, but it's not for me" and to be completely left alone. I accept that there is a coercive group dynamic at work here, but your tone indicates a level of hostility that will only make things worse. Instead of engaging in battle, you have to be calm, pleasant, and firm. And unless your boss is wielding a pair of clippers, surely someone in charge would want to know that what should be a private choice is becoming an office-wide hazing. —Prudie (from Slate online magazine)
|
| TOPICS |
|
RECAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Overview and Methods guides introduced you to the scholarly area of group processes. Guides Three and Four outlined a taxonomy of groups and issues in group structure, especially social roles. As you have seen, we have repeatedly referenced differences between formal and informal groups (and formal organizations too) as well as material on differentiated roles because these topics are central to the study of group dynamics and thus recur. Group social structure essentially acts as a "frame" around the"picture" of group processes.
Starting with Guide 5, we began to study processes that occur within virtually every group, from sports teams to classrooms to work groups. First, we examined attraction to groups, including exchange processes. Next, since attraction to groups clearly relates to group cohesion, we studied group cohesion, often considered the most important process within a group and certainly one of the most widely studied.
Because cohesive groups have more influence over their members, the study of cohesion naturally leads us to examine Influence in groups. We can define influence as interpersonal processes that change group members' initial thoughts, feelings, and behavior, typically in the direction of group goals. Alternatively, group influence can create inertia in members' thoughts, feelings and behavior when outside forces might argue for change in these.
Cohesive groups have more influence over their members because members of cohesive groups want to belong. Cohesive groups can better set norms, or evaluative standards for behavior. Members of cohesive groups are more likely to behaviorally conform to these norms, that is, they willingly accept influence. Moreover, cohesive groups also are more likely to be--or become--marked--by a relative uniformity of opinions, attitudes and values. In the case of interpersonal attraction dimensions of cohesion, recall that group members may conform because they don't want to disturb the harmony of the group and they want other people in the group to like them--or at the least accept their membership in the group.
Power is the exercise or implementation of influence. Those who are able to exert power can get others to do what they want (control others' outcomes) or stop unwanted behaviors. But it would be a mistake to see power as simply residing in any one person, such as the titular group leader. I take the Johnson and Johnson perspective that power is at least as much relational and positional as it is a personal characteristic (i.e., a "powerful person"). After all, it takes at least two, one exerting influence and at least a second to accept it.
Furthermore, I see power and status as intertwined although not identical. Individuals with higher group status typically have more power as well.
Supporting the positional and relational perspectives, groups also exert power through the coordinated actions of their members. For example, when members at a group meeting declaim the actions of another member, one after another, culminating in expulsion of that member from the group, we have seen a collective, not an individual, exertion of power. Because groups can appeal to certain bases of power more than individuals can (e.g. legitimate roles), their decisions can appear more justified and less capricious.
Remember, too, that it is not just
individuals
within groups who jockey for status, power and rewards.
Individuals keep an eye out for other
groups, also perhaps to increase their status or power.
And groups compete with other groups
to increase their overall status or power, and sometimes to recruit high
status members, too.
In Guide Seven, I mostly address influence
that flows from group members. We will shortly examine Group Performance.
Obviously, more influential groups also have a greater impact on group
performance. An often quite different source of influence is Leadership.
We can "triangulate" both group and leader influence to revisit group performance
and decision making. The rest of our semester is devoted to various applications
of these concepts, such as cooperation and competition.
| JUST
HOW CONFORMING ARE WE?
INDIVIDUALISTIC--COLLECTIVIST |
Americans like to brag that we are an individualistic culture. Individualism and non conformity are touted as "American virtues." Both scholars and laypeople contrast the so-called "individualistic culture" of the United States, Canada, and many Western European countries with more "collectivist cultures" in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. It is asserted that in more collectivist cultures, people more strongly identify with groups than they do in the U.S., seek group, rather than individual, solutions to problems, and stress individual achievement somewhat less and group performance somewhat more.
On paper this sounds scholastically defensible. And, in some areas, such as person perception and in conformity (not compliance), there do appear to be some cultural differences depending on how collectivist or individualistic the larger culture is coded to be. Some studies find changes over time in the same culture. (And remember, we don't know how large a role family size plays...with the dropping of birth rates all over the world, these cultural differences could change dramatically for the next generation.)
But, make no mistake about it! ALL of us accept group influence, regardless of collectivist or individualistic culture, or how ruggedly individualistic we assert ourselves to be. For example, research shows that a behavior increases among the United States general public after a law is passed that requires such behavior. This is true even when applying the law is irregular. The best example (in terms of trend data) being seat belt use in automobiles, but early research on drinking during Prohibition and research during the increase and decrease of the drinking age in various American states indicates similar findings. Although conforming behavior may not be unanimous on every behavior or law, clearly changes in formal and informal laws and norms have an effect.
Although laws, rules and regulation may spur reactance, i.e., the tendency of individuals to do the opposite of a promulgation simply because the behavior (or its lack) is mandated, conformity is the more typical response.
Leonard Berkowitz has asserted that much of our daily lives consist of "unthinking behavior." Many, if not most, of these behaviors involve conformity. Consider:
| CONCEPTUAL: CONFORMITY VERSUS COMPLIANCE |
For the past few decades, social psychologists have drawn a clear terminological distinction between conformity and compliance. This is relatively new and it is an important distinction because earlier treatments of influence tended to blur the distinctions between these two concepts. Thus, Milgram discussed his classic research in the shock study as "conformity to obedience." It is not clear whether a more recent group dynamicist would call the Milgram experimental paradigm we will shortly review as conformity or compliance. My guess is "compliance."
In conformity, individuals accept influence because they want to. Conformity is internally driven. It is affected by motivation, internalized norms, by the desire to be a group member (or member of some other collectivity) and sometimes by whether the behavior appears meaningful. There is typically correspondence between the individual's internal feelings and their external behavior. Acceptance of influence occurs in both public and private behavior.
Many adjustments of attitudes and behavior in groups occur because of conformity. Often members are not even consciously aware that they have conformed because behavior is "unthinking."
Even when conformity may be awkward, difficult or costly, individuals may adjust because the behavior is normative, i.e., it is seen as legitimate, right and proper. "Conscience behaviors," even when the individual realizes that they may incur penalties from other groups or the larger society, are an example of normative behaviors.
In compliance, individuals accept influence because they must. Compliance is externally imposed, often by strong rewards, threats or literally punishments (Daryl Bem called this "mand" behavior.) Internally, individuals may disagree with the external mandate or feel uncomfortable about it but their public behavior adjusts to the source of influence nonetheless. Colloquially put, we "go along to get along." This can be one of the prices exerted by influence in groups noted above.
Compliance behavior occurs more often when the individual believes s/he has few or no alternatives in group choice (e.g., the job market is terrible, there is only one religious congregation of the person's denomination in town, or the individual is bound and determined to join the highest status fraternity, sorority, or graduate program). It is more likely in a total environment, where one group controls all or most domains of an individual's life (e.g., parents with small children, some religious cults, the military) and thus has singular control over rewards and punishments. Compliance is more likely among low status group members, whereas conformity is more likely among high status group members (who often set the norms). Highly cohesive groups not only can create more conformity, but, should the individual wish to belong no matter what, can be more coersive as well.
Compliance is a much more costly mechanism than conformity. Most groups prefer internalized conformity.
In the Guide on Group Cohesion, I mentioned that the wise, large organization will find a way to pull smaller subgroups within the organizaton "to its side." One way is to give these groups some determination over, for example, larger group goals or working conditions. When people feel they have a choice over their courses of action, they become more committed. In our terms here, they conform, rather than comply. The key, research finds, however, is to MEAN IT! If the input of subgroups becomes a sham, an ingratiation tactic rather than a democratic way of sharing power, there is no corresponding increase in commitment among group members.
| WHICH FACTORS INCREASE GROUP INFLUENCE? |
We shouldn't be surprised that some of the same factors that increase group cohesion also increase the influence of a group. However, it is important to realize that groups you don't belong to may still have an influence. Remember reference groups? Remember social comparison processes?
Both the research literature on reference groups and that on social comparison processes remind us that groups can influence us even when we don't belong. Indeed, political scientists know that special interest groups frequently influence not only politicians but the general [American] public. For example, American mass public attitudes among Whites and men changed significantly during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They became more inclusive due in part to the activism of Black Civil Rights groups and feminist activists who stressed cognitive elements (addressing stereotypes), issues of legitimacy and fairness (values), and presented attractive referent figures (Gloria Steinem). Although only a tiny minority of Americans supported gay marriage 20 years ago, a slim majority do so now, even though most Americans are heterosexual.
However, influence is typically greater for the groups you belong to, because normative influence is added to informational influence. Typically primary groups, with their more intense, direct interpersonal interaction influence us more than secondary or tertiary groups.
Resources that a group has to offer also will increase that group's influence (reprise). Except for punishments, most of these resources affect conformity rather than compliance. Phrases in parentheses are from the classic French and Raven typology.
|
|
Thus, a particularly important resource is whether the group or referent figure is seen as a legitimate authority, embodying the norms of a society or culture. Legitimate authorities receive their power from social mandates (e.g., elected officials or the "divine right of kings"), some type of expertise (e.g., an advanced degree), or because they represent an institution seen as important in that culture (e.g., a pastor of a religious denomination or a National Science Foundation scientist).
Gaining legitimacy should not be taken for granted and it is not a static phenomenon. Cultural battles constantly occur over whether a group, an organization, or an authority figure is legitimate. For example, battles occur in medicine about "alternative medicine" or pharmaceuticals. Christian denominations often label one another as Christian with a "large C" versus christian with a "small c." (The "large Cs" are the "legitimate Christians.") Battles occur in scholarly fields over dominant paradigms on a regular basis and American public school boards debate over the representation of women and ethnic minorities in textbooks and library resources.
Legitimacy will depend in part on the situation. Typically jurors with prior jury experience are more often chosen or elected Foreman. Faculty who head national professional associations more often become Department Heads or Chairs. Members of youth gangs who "proved their toughness" more often become gang leaders. This is where the expectancy states concepts of diffuse versus specific status characteristics described earlier become especially helpful because they tell us which characteristics tend to become salient in a particular situation or group.
Gaining legitimacy
is important because we trust "legitimate" groups and authority figures
more. For example, I am much more likely to manage my health using information
from the American Heart Association than I am from the clerk at the health
food store or the magazine Prevention. I turn to "peer-reviewed"
journals as a more reliable source of disciplinary information than newspapers
or the popular magazines at grocery store checkout counters.
Other factors
that become important in group influence stem from the group situation
itself:
| HOW DO GROUPS EXERT INFLUENCE? |
Groups use a variety of interpersonal tactics to exert influence. These may be direct (orders, direct requests) or indirect (flattery, manipulation). Bullying, ingratiating, criticizing, complimenting, negotiating, lying, and more are examples of personal actions that people undertake when they seek to persuade. Check out Forsyth for a terrific and highly inclusive list. These tactics all contribute to the group process.
People may be more willing to accept influence in groups because of diffusion of responsibility. Three decades of research on helping behavior has documented that people feel less responsible or accountable for outcomes when they are in a group than when they are alone. However, this is particularly true for groups of strangers where anonymity and deindividuation processes may occur and less true when people are at least acquainted..
Groups also rarely make huge initial demands on their members. To do so, after all, would probably scare off new recruits, particularly if the individual has a high CLALT and possesses a number of attractive alternatives. A more typical tactic is "the foot in the door technique." Groups begin by making relatively minor demands of new members, then escalate their requests after the individual has filled those requirements.
However, being in a group lends another dimension to exerting influence. Individuals can coordinate their actions in scripts and sequences to make influence attempts.
In groups, individuals can occupy social roles that give them the legitimate right, recognized as proper and justified by group members, to exert influence. For example, most people agree that bosses have the power to hire and fire. Even in unionized workplaces bosses retain this power, although they may have to follow contractual steps in the process of doing either.
People in groups can form coalitions or clusters with other members. Coalitions empower their members, shielding them from majority influence and increasing the possibilities of minority influence. Members of coalitions can provide social support to one another. Even individuals in a coalition of two or three can begin to influence the entire group.
Obviously, the group can bestow rewards or enact punishments. Isolation and expulsion are powerful disincentives in attractive or cohesive groups. Research strongly indicates that members of cohesive groups are more apt to use negative inducements such as ridicule, scapegoating, or isolating deviant members than less cohesive groups do. On the positive side, groups may socialize recruits or resocialize members through initiation or probationary periods, direct instruction, or the use of powerful or attractive models. Recruits and members may identify with powerful (also with similar) models and more frequently learn or perform behaviors the group finds desirable.
Groups that establish power hierarchies may become devoted to them and develop tactics to preserve group structure. Examples include installing surveillance mechanisms (e.g., rewarding "snitches" or gossips), enacting formal power mechanisms, such as role asymmetries in first names, touching, standing, etc., and insisting on formal "chains of command" with centralized communication structures.
What I will examine, in a later guide,
is that the success of leadership styles, from the very formal and hierarchical
to the more casual and egalitarian, depends heavily on interactions among
leadership style, the type of group, the group task, and leader-member
relations. An exertion of power that strikes us as rigid or "cold" may
be the right style to use, depending on the situation.
| IF POWER IS POSITIONAL, CAN IT CORRUPT? (yes) |
Throughout this guide, I have emphasized power and the exertion of influence more as a positional than a personal phenomenon. But research has found that occupying a position of power has effects on its occupants. This occurs even when experimental subjects are randomly assigned to a power--or a leadership--position (keeping in mind that leadership positions vary considerably in their control over resources.)
Individuals assigned to leadership positions, including central positions in communication structures, begin to act like common stereotypes of "leaders." They issue more orders and make more requests. They use direct, rather than indirect, forms of influence. Forsyth is one of the few group researchers I know who has devoted attention to the relatively few studies in this area.
And, of course, subordinates begin to behave differently toward either leaders or persons in power than they do with peers. (Or, at least, SOME subordinates do.) They flatter leaders, defer to them, do favors for them, use more indirect means of influence attempts, and generally behave quite pleasantly toward them. While leaders bask in this positive attention, subordinates typically avoid conveying negative information ("the messenger of the bad news...") or expressing critical feelings. The relationship of subordinates to status superiors has been characterized as ambivalent, with subordinates harboring feelings of admiration, emulation, envy, resentment, and reactance. Unfortunately this means that leaders often fail to receive badly needed information that is critical of the leader or the enterprise because subordinates are focused on flattery, deference, and avoid being the "bearer of bad news." Thus, this asymmetry in information flow is one factor that can contribute to groupthink by influencing the leader's view of events.
The feelings of those in power, in contrast, are far less complex! They come to feel superior even if it was random assignment that placed them there. They:
lending support to the old adage "power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some of these changes
may occur, of course, because of the way subordinates behave toward them,
but authorities in the chain of command above may also flatter the new
leader, because they want loyalty in THEIR subordinates.
|
|
So...at this point, what do YOU think? When you view the Milgram tape, ask yourself, was the "Milgram situation" conformity or compliance? What were the dynamics at work that led such a large fraction of research subjects to continue pushing the shock apparatus to dangerously high levels, despite their clear discomfort at doing so? What was the role of authority? Which types of group situations can you see the Milgram experimental paradigm extending to?
OVERVIEW |
 |
|
This page was built with
Netscape Composer.
Susan Carol Losh March 4
2018
