UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 9.8 Free with a free account
The Weight of the Crowd: Social Pressure and Everyday Conformity
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 9: Group Dynamics, Conformity, and ObedienceSection 9.8 · lesson 61 of 8510 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Classic Experiments Revisited: Robbers Cave, the Autokinetic Effect, and Milgram →← Fitting In or Following Facts: Normative Versus Informational ConformityNext lesson: Classic Experiments Revisited: Robbers Cave, the Autokinetic Effect, and Milgram →
In this lesson
What moderates conformity outside the laboratory, and why crowds fail to help.
- Describe the principal moderators of everyday conformity
- Summarize Bond and Smith's cross-cultural meta-analysis
- Explain the bystander effect through the decision cascade
- Differentiate pluralistic ignorance from diffusion of responsibility
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,259 words). Read along, or search it.
Group Dynamics, Conformity, and Obedience
The Weight of the Crowd
Asch's line task isolated one force, in a laboratory. This section asks what happens when many forces run at once. Six moderators determine how heavy a crowd's weight actually is. One of them is culture, and the cross-cultural finding is unusually clean. Then we turn to the crowd's most disturbing consequence. The bystander effect. Where adding potential helpers makes help less likely, not more. Two separate mechanisms produce that, and they operate at different points. Knowing which one is running tells you what to do about it. And the section ends with one sentence that fixes both at once.
Outside The Lab
One Vector, Then Many
Asch isolated a single situational vector. Unanimous disagreement on an unambiguous judgment, and it produced real yielding. Everyday life multiplies those vectors. A pedestrian crosses a busy road because the group around her does. A patient hesitates to question a doctor's prescription. A staff member nods along with a proposal she finds unconvincing. The influences in those moments are continuous with Asch's. But they are shaped by additional moderators. Culture, status, the cost of dissent, the visibility of the response. Those determine how heavy the crowd's weight finally is.
Six Moderators
What Makes the Crowd Heavier
Six moderators are well established, so take them in order. Majority size increases conformity up to about three, then plateaus, with diminishing pressure. Unanimity is the strongest moderator of the six. A single ally collapses the pressure, by releasing the normative threat. Status and expertise of the source shift conformity upward. Because status boosts both routes at once. Response visibility engages normative pressure specifically. Public responses increase conformity, private responses reduce it. Issue self-relevance runs the other way. High relevance means less conformity, because identity protection overrides. And cultural context matters, with collectivist settings above individualist ones.
Reading The Table
Why Unanimity Beats Size
Two of those moderators deserve a closer look. Group size has a ceiling, and Asch found it in nineteen fifty-six. Conformity rises sharply from one confederate to three, and then plateaus. Unanimity does not behave that way at all. Even a single ally dramatically reduces yielding. Which is not what a weight-of-numbers account would predict. Status shifts the whole curve upward, through both routes. High-status judgments are seen as more diagnostic, which is informational. And rejection by high-status others is more costly, which is normative. Response visibility is more interesting than it looks. Anonymity reduces normative conformity while preserving informational conformity. So visibility is a route selector, not a volume knob.
Bond And Smith, 1996
The Clearest Cross-Cultural Finding
The cultural moderator has unusually strong evidence behind it. Bond and Smith published the meta-analysis in nineteen ninety-six. One hundred and thirty-three Asch-style replications, across seventeen nations. Conformity rates were systematically higher in collectivist settings. Settings emphasizing in-group goals, harmony, and interdependence. Higher than in individualist settings, which emphasize autonomy and uniqueness. And the contrast survived a serious set of controls. Sample type, year of study, and stimulus parameters. It was also reproduced using Hofstede's individualism index. As a continuous predictor, rather than a category. Effect sizes were higher in Brazil, Hong Kong, Fiji, and Japan. Than in Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Two Cautions
What the Finding Does Not Say
Two cautions attach to that finding, and both matter. First, the contrast is between cultural tendencies. Not between fixed national types. Individuals vary widely within any culture. Second, the effect is not even fixed over time. There is a declining time-series in the United States data. Conformity rates were lower in later replications than in earlier ones. So social and historical context shifts conformity pressure. Even inside a single culture. Which gives you the defensible reading of the whole finding. It is not that some people are conformists and others are not. The same situational forces produce different intensities in different surrounds.
Individual Differences
Who Yields More
Within any culture, individuals still vary. Three dimensions dominate. Need for cognitive closure is the first. Kruglanski and Webster described it in nineteen ninety-six. A preference for definite answers, and a dislike of ambiguity. It predicts greater conformity on ambiguous tasks. Where the group conveniently supplies a settled judgment. Self-monitoring is the second, from Snyder in nineteen seventy-four. The tendency to adjust your expressed self to the social situation. It predicts higher public conformity, especially with an evaluative audience. Self-esteem is the third, and it is genuinely complex. Very low self-esteem can produce higher conformity, or higher defiance. Depending on whether the person seeks acceptance or signals independence. Sex differences, much debated in older work, are now treated as small.
The Bystander Effect
More Helpers, Less Help
Now the crowd's most disturbing everyday consequence. The bystander effect: more potential helpers means any one is less likely to act. Latané and Darley investigated it systematically, in nineteen sixty-eight and seventy. In response to the nineteen sixty-four Kitty Genovese case. Whose factual details were later contested, it should be said. But whose role as a research stimulus is undisputed. They ran more than fifty experimental settings. Smoke seeping under a door. A confederate apparently in convulsions. A woman heard to fall in an adjacent room. Participants alone helped reliably, and quickly. Participants in groups helped less often, and more slowly.
The Cascade
Four Stages, Three of Them Vulnerable
Their account proceeds through a decision cascade. Helping requires four stages, and all four must be cleared. First, the bystander has to notice the event at all. Second, interpret it as an emergency. Third, assume personal responsibility for intervention. Fourth, know what to do, and act. Now the crucial structural point. Other bystanders affect three of those four stages. And at every affected stage, their presence reduces, not increases, the chance of help. So the failure is not one dramatic moment of cowardice. It is a chain with three points of quiet leakage.
Engine One
Pluralistic Ignorance
Two engines drive the effect, and they sit at different stages. Pluralistic ignorance operates at the interpretation stage. Each bystander is uncertain whether this is really an emergency. So they look to others for cues, which is reasonable. And each one sees others apparently calm. Calm because they too are uncertain, and watching. From that calm, each infers the situation is not serious. So the collective inaction gets misread as informed inaction. Everyone defers to a confidence that nobody actually has. Notice that the error requires a crowd to exist. A single uncertain bystander has nothing to defer to, and must decide. It takes at least two, each reading the other's hesitation as evidence.
Engine Two
Diffusion of Responsibility
The second engine is diffusion of responsibility. It operates one step later, at the responsibility stage. With several potential helpers present, the moral weight falls on no one in particular. The felt obligation is divided across all available bystanders. Both engines are amplified by the same thing: anonymity. Each bystander expects others not to recognize them. Which lowers the cost of doing nothing. And both are dampened by features that single individuals out. Visible eye contact. A direct request. The presence of trusted others. It is worth keeping the two engines separate in your head. In an unmistakable emergency there is no interpretive confusion. Only the question of whose job it is.
Consolidate
Designing Against Bystander Apathy
The applied work all targets bottlenecks in that cascade. Bystander training programs and public-information campaigns do it deliberately. If you see something, say something, is aimed at the interpretation stage. First-aid certification is aimed at the final stage. At knowing what to do once you have decided to act. But one prescription outperforms all of them, if you need help yourself. Name a specific individual, and assign them a specific task. You, in the red jacket, call an ambulance. Naming dissolves diffusion of responsibility. The obligation can no longer be divided among anybody else. And the instruction substitutes for their uncertainty about what to do. One sentence, clearing two of the four stages at once.
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Weight of the Crowd: Social Pressure and Everyday Conformity
What factors make people more likely to conform?
Do people in some cultures conform more than others?
What personality traits are linked to conformity?
Why do people conform more to high-status or expert sources?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →