A study of nurses found almost universal compliance with drs. Dissimilar people in weak situations may show more differences. put Mother Theresa and Charles Manson together in an everyday situation, and personality may play a more prominent role. Where the task is difficult, we are more likely to look to others as sources of information regarding appropriate courses of action. However, a desire for restitution does not seem to be the reason why.Galileo, Lincoln, Freud all advanced minority positions and eventually induced the majority to adopt their beliefs.Deviant behavior is a potential threat to the group's effectiveness.While complying, we might discover something about our actions, or about the consequences of our actions, that makes it worthwhile to continue the behavior even after the original reason for compliance is no longer forthcoming. Have real-life examples of the power of suggestibility - suicides and auto accidents go up after a prominent person commits suicide. Showed people lines - a third of the time subjects were willing to go against their better judgment and agree with the group. Asch found that three different kinds of reactions had contributed to the conformity. Lacking confidence in their own observations, they reported not what they saw but what they felt must be correct. They said they had yielded so as not to appear different or stupid in the eyes of other group members. Conversely, higher status people, or those who feel they are more competent at the task in question, are more likely to resist group pressure. Where behavior is difficult to monitor, the effectiveness of social sanctions is weakened. Once people have given an answer, they are much more likely to stick with it than when they hear others first. Vividly witnessing the suffering of others makes it more difficult to continue inflicting pain on them.For example, people came to obey speeding laws even after enforcement was lessened because they liked the less hectic pace. Crutchfield did a similar study with military officers. In public settings, we are likely to experience pressures for compliance although private acceptance may be absent. Those who state own opinions first are much less open to influence. In another variation on this theme, the subject did not have to press the shock lever himself but was assigned the subsidiary role of helping another teacher.If a member's behavior departs from group norms, but points to new ways to more fully realize the group's goals, the changes may be accepted by group members..If a member tries to force a change in the group goals, he or she will likely meet with resistance.They can also change if people who are more important to you express different beliefs. Members who conform may cause a group to fail to meet its objectives. If a person feels that he cannot change the situation, he is unlikely to try anything new. No one tries anything different, and consequently, nothing improves. Milgram found that when teacher/confederates disobeyed, only 10% of the subjects delivered the maximum shock. He reasons that one deviation is unlikely to jeopardize the position of a high status person, and that low status people have little to lose by nonconformity.The effect of identification can also be dissipated by a desire to be right. Internalization is the most permanent response to social influence because your motivation to be right is a powerful and self-sustaining force that does not depend on constant surveillance (as does compliance), or on your continued esteem for another person or group (as does identification). In compliance, the important component is - the credibility of the person who supplies the information 5. In the Asch studies, it seems obvious the subjects were complying with the unanimous opinion of the group in order to avoid the punishment of ridicule or rejection. They hesitate to take the initiative to turn the situation around, especially if they do not feel personally responsible for the group's success or failure. But for persons of intermediate status, the situation is different; they lack the standing of the high status person, and unlike the low status person, they have plenty of room for downward mobility.To put it another way, groups are generally reluctant to label a high-status person as deviant. The group may not invite the deviant back to the next meeting. Psychological isolation - The majority will ignore the deviant and refuse to interact with him even though he is physically present.When the consequences of the deviation are minor, they prefer to overlook the matter. Rejection and sanctioning often occur at the same time.