Conformity I PSY 300 Conformity Defined as changing

  • Slides: 29
Download presentation
Conformity I PSY 300

Conformity I PSY 300

Conformity • Defined as changing one’s behaviour or beliefs in response to explicit or

Conformity • Defined as changing one’s behaviour or beliefs in response to explicit or implicit (whether real or imagined) pressure from others.

Topics 50 mins • • • Intro (5) The Hazards of Social Influence VIDEO:

Topics 50 mins • • • Intro (5) The Hazards of Social Influence VIDEO: candid camera: “face the rear” (10) Sherif’s Informational Social Influence (15) Solomon Asch’s studies (20)

 • VIDEO: “Face the rear” segment from Candid Camera.

• VIDEO: “Face the rear” segment from Candid Camera.

Sherif’s experiments • Muzafer Sherif (1906 -1978) • 1936 experiment on Informational Social Influence:

Sherif’s experiments • Muzafer Sherif (1906 -1978) • 1936 experiment on Informational Social Influence: – Wanted to see how people use other people as a social ‘frame of reference’ – Used the autokinetic illusion – Subjects gradually made use of other’s responses as Social Information

Sherif’s experiments

Sherif’s experiments

The Asch Experiment • 1951 – 2 nd most famous study in social psychology

The Asch Experiment • 1951 – 2 nd most famous study in social psychology • Ostensibly a simple perceptual discrimination task – choose the matching line

The Asch Experiment conformity level number of confederates

The Asch Experiment conformity level number of confederates

The Asch Experiment • Reasoning is normative, rather than informational social influence. • Notably,

The Asch Experiment • Reasoning is normative, rather than informational social influence. • Notably, if one confederate breaks the unanimity, if there is one dissenting voice, the dramatic effects of conformity are erased, and participants feel free to give the correct answers that seemed obvious all along.

Conformity II PSY 300

Conformity II PSY 300

Topics • The hazards of social influence [cont] • Stanley Milgram’s studies (30) •

Topics • The hazards of social influence [cont] • Stanley Milgram’s studies (30) • Relation to real events – WWII and the Nuremburg trials (10) • Philip Zimbardo’s study (5) • Relation to real events - Abu Ghraib (5)

The milgram experiments

The milgram experiments

The milgram experiments • Results – proximity of experimenter – Exp. 1: Standard methodology:

The milgram experiments • Results – proximity of experimenter – Exp. 1: Standard methodology: • No subject stopped before 300 volts (just before “extreme intense shock” label) • 26/40 (65%) ‘completed’ the experiment, going to 450 volts – Exp. 2: Experimenter communicates by phone: • Full compliance drops to 21% • Some participants ‘faked’ continuing to the experimenter • Indicates that proximity from authority figure increases dissent

The milgram experiments • Results – proximity of victim – Exp. 3: Proximity -

The milgram experiments • Results – proximity of victim – Exp. 3: Proximity - Learner in same room: • Full compliance drops to 40% – Exp. 4: Touch Proximity – Teacher physically places learners hand on the shock plate: • Full compliance drops to 30% • Some participants ‘faked’ continuing to the experimenter • Together, experiments 3 and 4 indicate that proximity to victim increases dissent

The milgram experiments • Results – authority – Exp. 10: Moved from Yale to

The milgram experiments • Results – authority – Exp. 10: Moved from Yale to non-descript building: • Full compliance drops to 47. 5% (still quite high) – Exp. 13: Ordinary Man (confederate) gives orders: • After experimenter leaves, a second ‘subject’ suggests that shock level moves up • Full compliance still 20% – Exp 13 a: Ordinary Man takes over, Subject as Bystander: • All 16 participants protested, with 4 physically restraining him

The milgram experiments • Results – dissent – Exp. 15: Two authorities giving contradictory

The milgram experiments • Results – dissent – Exp. 15: Two authorities giving contradictory commands • Good cop/Bad cop routine • 18/20 stopped when they first disagreed – Exp. 17: Two peers (confederate) rebel, n=40 • 1 st peer refuses at 150 -volts, 3/39 remaining quit • 2 nd peer refuses, 12/27 remaining quit • 4/20 (20%) fully comply

“behfel ist behfel”: experiment 18 • The Nuremburg trials of 1945 -1949 – 24

“behfel ist behfel”: experiment 18 • The Nuremburg trials of 1945 -1949 – 24 Nazi leaders accused of: • Crimes against peace • War crimes • Crimes against humanity • Exp. 18: Peer (confederate) administers shocks – Subjects were accessory to shocking, but not pressing the button – 37/40 (92. 5%) fully complied with their complicit role

Philip zimbardo and The stanford prison experiment • “Guards” and “Prisoners” recruited from Stanford

Philip zimbardo and The stanford prison experiment • “Guards” and “Prisoners” recruited from Stanford university undergraduate population • Were paid today’s equivalent of $76/day • Zimbardo picked the 24 most ‘psychology stable’ of the 70 respondents • “Prisoners” were picked up by police, booked, and locked in the mock jail in the Psych dpt. • Role playing was so intense that experiment was cancelled after 6 days, instead of planned 2 weeks

Zimbardo and abu ghraib a few bad apples or a barrel of vinegar?

Zimbardo and abu ghraib a few bad apples or a barrel of vinegar?

Conformity III PSY 300

Conformity III PSY 300

Topics(50) • • • What has changed? (15) The Wisdom of Crowds? Interpreting Asch,

Topics(50) • • • What has changed? (15) The Wisdom of Crowds? Interpreting Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo (15) The logic behind the conformist bias (15) Lessons: The value of nonconformity, the power of the situation, and the malleability of the person (5)

Ever since asch: What has changed? • Would Milgram happen today? • Would Asch

Ever since asch: What has changed? • Would Milgram happen today? • Would Asch happen today? – 1996 Meta-analysis by Bond and Smith shows a steady decline in conformity since the original Asch studies – Why? • What do these studies tell us about how we should live our lives?

The wisdom of crowds? • The applicability of the conformity experiments – The disingenuousness

The wisdom of crowds? • The applicability of the conformity experiments – The disingenuousness of the studies • Milgram’s strange use of authority. • Asch’s strange use of confederates. • Sherif’s misleading autokinetic illusion task.

The wisdom of crowds? The slaughtered Ox By rembrandt

The wisdom of crowds? The slaughtered Ox By rembrandt

The wisdom of crowds?

The wisdom of crowds?

Factors influencing collective wisdom • Diversity of opinion: – Each person should have private

Factors influencing collective wisdom • Diversity of opinion: – Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts. • Independence: – People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.

lessons • The perils and promises of social influence: – The freedom of ideas

lessons • The perils and promises of social influence: – The freedom of ideas and the diversity of opinion is a social good – a benefit to everyone. Restrictions, legal or simply normative, on this freedom costs everyone. – A balance must be struck between obedience to social norms and civic life, and retaining the integrity to dissent from illegitimate authority – to see “no sir, I will not continue, and if you ask me once more, you’d better put your glasses down”