Class 18 Conformity and Compliance Huckleberry Finn The

Class 18: Conformity and Compliance

Huckleberry Finn: The Performer, the Deceiver-the Self? Huck’s moral dilemma: Help Jim escape to freedom. What a dilemma? In Huck’s world, good people don’t help slaves escape. The stigma of an “ablishon’ist”. Huck morally mortified by Jim’s talk about freeing his wife and children. Huck decides to turn Jim in, feels relief. Feels like a moral failure. “I knowed very well I done wrong, Huck encounters slavers; to right; a body and I see it warn’t no use fordeceives me to trythem to learn save Jimget started right when he’s little aint got no show…” that don’t Social norms, desire to be good over-turned by “bad” impulse. What is the source of this impulse? Who authored it?

The Self: Is There a There? Higg’s Boson Analogy

Conformity and the Individual: A Theme Embedded in a Time

Solomon Asch Swarthmore (1947 -1966): Trained in Gestalt Psych under W. Kohler Rutgers (1966 -1972): Inst. Cog. Studies U. Penn (1972 -1979) Impression formation: Order effects and critical attributes Group A. intelligent-industrious-impulsive-criticalstubborn-envious Group. A: B. intelligent-skillful-industrious-warm-determinedenvious-stubborn-critical-impulsive-industrious Group -intelligent practical-cautious Group B: intelligent-skillful-industrious-cold-determined-

Asch Compliance Study Purpose: social To demonstrate the force of pressure on public judgment. Method: about Ss are in study supposedly spatial judgment fact other Ss answers in Result: One of 6 -8 other subjects (in confeds) On certain trials, all give clearly wrong Critical outcome: will S answer same way as others. 76% comply at least

Number of Subjects Results of Standard Conformity Study Erroneous Responses

Character of Non-Conformers 1. Confident in own perception: Most vigorous dissenters. Emotionally-driven. 2. Withdrawn: Non-emotional, non-spontaneous; principled and deliberate. 3. Conflicted: Torn and anxious, but stuck to demands of task not demands of group.

Character of Conformers 1. Distorted perception: Actually see lines in distorted manner 2. Distorted judgment: Do not trust own perceptions 3. Distorted action: Don't want to defy the group

The Power of Numbers--To Harm and to Help How large a majority to produce conformity? Just three unanimous others Effect of one ally among bizarre majority? Drops from 74% to 10% What happens when ally joins majority? Conformity totally restored Late arrival of ally? Reduced conformity, but not totally reduced. Why? Compromise partner--wrong, but not as wrong as majority Reduced degree, but not number, of errors

Asch Study and Invisible Rope Asch Study http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=sno 1 Tp. CLj 6 A&feature=player_detailpage Invis ble R pe http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=AMLd 4 oh. Aff. Q&feature=fvwp&NR=1

Reasons for Compliance Situational Factors Group unanimity Group cohesiveness Opportunity to answer privately vs. publicly Dispositional (Person) Factors Desire to be liked (Normative Social Influence) Desire to behave adaptively

Non-Compliance and the Power of Minorities Reasons for non-compliance Need for individuation Desire to maintain personal control Desire to maintain personal integrity Power of Minorities Requires that minority: * be consistent * be non-rigid, non-dogmatic * hold views consistent with circumstances People comply with minority because: Minority motivated to think systematically Minority gets others to think systematically

Bystander Intervention John Darley Bibb Latane Kitty Daniel Batson

Intervention Study Design Ss told study involves personal disclosures. Anonymity important. All Ss in separate rooms. Only 1 naive S, rest are confeds. One confed fakes an epileptic seizure IV: How many other "subjects" witness distressed subject: 0, 1, or 4 DV: Does naive subject help? How long until subject helps?

Bystander Study Results

Reasons for Not Helping Non-helpers in state of conflict: Avoidance/Avoidance Why we dispositionalize: a. Provides reason, meaning for bad events b. Provide ego-buffer from thoughts of own possible failure to help.

From Jerusalem to Jericho Darley & Batson, 1973 Why doesn’t she help?

Design and Predictions Subjects: 40 seminary students Religiosity Measure: Extrinsic: Religion as means to ends Intrinsic: Religion as end in itself Religion as a quest Cover story: Study concerns vocational careers of seminarians Task: Ss give talk on either: Parable of Good Samaritan (help relevant) Vocational opportunities (help irrelevant) Time Pressure: Ample/Moderate/little time to get to

Helping Measure “Victim” rates S’s response: 0 = Failed to notice 1 = Noticed only 2 = Indirect help 3 = Offered help 4 = Insisted on helping Main effect for Time Pressure No Effect for Message Interaction is not significant NOTE: Small n may have obscured possible interaction Religiosity: Small but real effects; doctrinal types most

Moderators of Bystander Apathy Situational ambiguity: In small groups, how often 1 person helps? 100% in non-ambig, 30% in ambig. Competence of other potential helpers Prior “social contract” with victim Radio at beach; Suitcase at “automat” “Contracted” more likely to NOTICE theft, and STOP theft Countering bystander apathy X ____ Will one of you please help?

Implicit Bystander Effects Garcia, Weaver, Moskowitz, & Darley, JPSP, 2002 Simply thinking about being in a group should induce bystander effects. Why? Primes: Being “deindividuated” Lowered sense of accountability Method Studies 1 and 3 1. Think about dinner with 1, 10, 30 friends 2. Filler task Study 1 DV: How much of your salary plan to donate to charity? Study 3 DV: How much time will you now give us on an experiment?

Studies 1 and 3 Results

Requesting Help: Pup Psychology