[SOCPSY] Chapter 6: Conformity & Obedience

Conformity

a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined group pressure

- change in behavior or belief to accord with others

- acting differently due to the influence of others vs if you were alone

- being affected by how they act

acceptance

conformity that involves both acting and believing in accord with social pressure

- genuinely believe what the group believes in

compliance

Conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with an implied or explicit request while privately disagreeing

- don't believe in what you're doing

- insincere, outward conformity

obedience

type of compliance involving acting in accord with a direct order or command

what are the classic conformity studies?

1. sherif's studies norm formation

2. asch's studies of group pressure

3. milgram's obedience studies

sherif's studies of norm formation

- observe the emergence of social norm in the lab

- used the autokinetic phenomenon

- Reveals the suggestibility of participants

- false beliefs

ex. one person laughs and another person will also laugh

autokinetic phenomenon

self (auto) motion (kinetic)

- the apparent movement of a stationary point of light in the dark

A stationary point of light in a darkened room will look like its moving

Step 1: Participants were exposed individually and asked how far the light had moved

Step 2: Bring them in again, in groups, have them call out their answers

- Sherif found that participants' answers converged

- One year later: The estimates reflected the group consensus, they really did come to believe these answers

- Peoples answered converged over time as people yelled them out together

S: transmission of false beliefs

- unwitting conspirators in perpetuating a cultural fraud

our views of reality are not ours alone

imitation fosters fondness

-

mood linkage

just being around happy people can help us feel happier

- friends function as a social system

chameleon effect

social contagion

- mimicking someone else's behavior

- generally ilicits liking except when it's anger

behavior synchronizing

includes speaking; people tend to mirror grammar that they read and hear

mimicry

- our natural mimicry inclines us to feel what the other feels

- helps people look more helpful and likeable

- another's anger fosters disliking

mass hysteria

suggestibility to problems that spreads throughout a large group of people

ex. suicide

Asch's Studies of Group pressure

Perceptual judgment experiment

Six confederates gave incorrect answers to see if participant would agree even if he knew it was the incorrect answer

- epistemological dilemma: what is true? peers or eyes?

- 63% didn't conform

- tell the truth while others don't

- that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern

individualistic: promoting autonomy

collectivistic: conforming

- lacked mundane realism; but had experimental realism

- humane, democratic, individualistic values would make them resist such pressure

A: instances

- dental flossing: inflated estimate not only expressed increased intent to floss

- cancer screening

- soccer referee decisions: high volume more liekly to award card

milgram's obedience studies

- tested the demands of authority clash with the demands of conscience

- become part of society's shared intellectual legacy

- teacher role with shock generator = experimenter tells teacher to move one level higher on generator each time wrong answer

- progessed all the way to 450 volts; followed orders to hurt someone

- complied with a command to continue the procedure

- indvidualism may have reduced obedience

- DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY OBEY; nearly all stopped and expressed concern for the learner

mere obedience

obeying a direct order

- challenges participant's feeling of control

- argued that they did have a choice about whether to continue

4 features of milgram's study design

- the slippery slope of small requests that escalate into large ones

- the framing of shock-giving as the social norm for the situation

- the opportunity to deny responsibility

- the limited time to reflect on decision

the ethics of milgram's studies

- learner in these studies actually received no shock

- stressed them against their will

- critics argued that the participant's self-concept may have been altered

- milgram pointed to the important lessons taught by 2 dozen studies with a diverse sample

- deception was revealed

what breeds obedience?

- varied the social conditoons, complience ranged from 0 to 93 percent fully obedient

1. victim's distance or depersonalization

2. closeness and legitimacy of the authority

3. institutional authority

4. liberating effects of group influence

victim's distance

acted with greatest obedience and least compassion when the learners couldn't be seen

- when the victim was remote and the teachers heard no complaints, nearly all obeyed calmly to the end

- easiest to abuse someone who is distant or depersonalized

- lengthened with the use of unmanned flying drones that can drop bombs

- people act most compassionately toward those who are personalized

closeness and legitimacy of the authority

- physical presence of the experimenter also affected obedience

- authority must be perceived as legitimate

- participants were significantly more obedient when they identified with the researcher or the scientific community he represents

- compliance with legitimate authority was also apparent in the strange case of the rectal ear ache

- manager feared that disobedience might mean losing his job

institutional authority

- institutional prestige legitimized experiment commands

- other institutions have lower obedience rate

- authorities backed by institutions wield social power

the liberating effects of group influence

- give us a negative view of conformity

- can be constructive

- occasional liberating effect of conformity

- released true feelings when they saw other people felt the same way = free

reflection on classic studies

- obedience studies vs conformity in strength of social pressure: obedience is explicitly commanded

similarities of asch and milgram studies

- showed how compliance can take precedence over moral sense

- succeeded in pressuring people to go against their own consciences

- sensitized us to moral conflicts in our own lives

- affirmed 2 familiar social psychological principles; the link between behavior and attitudes and the power of the situation

Sherif: Informational influence and private acceptance

Asch: Normative influence and Public Conformity

behavior and attitudes

- when external influences override inner convictions, attitudes fail to determine behavior

- powerful social pressure (the experimenter's commands_ overcame a weaker one (the remote victims pleas)

- compliance bred acceptance

- evolving attittudes both follow and justify actions

- humans have a capacity for heroism

- initial helping heightened commitment, leading to more helping

the power of social norms

in trying to break social constraints, we realize how strong they are

- these experiments the power of social norms and show hard it is to predict behavior, even our own behavior

- presumed that they themselves would have acted more strongly

- saying what we would do in a hypothetical situation is often easier than doing it in a real situation

- situations can induce ordinary people to capitulate cruelty

- the drift toward evil usually comes in small increments, without any conscious intent to do evil

milgram lesson: ordinary people can become agents in terrible destructive process. good people do bad things.

harm-doing exonerate harm-doers

to explain is not to excuse

- understand the ordinaries of extraordinary evil, we will be less surprised by evil

- conformity and obedience situations in lab differ from everyday life

- where people justify or excuse harmful actions after they've been committed, in order to reduce discomfort or guilt—either for themselves or on behalf of others.

- justifying your wrongdoings

what predicts conformity?

- conformity did grow if judgments were difficult

- group attributes

1. group size

2. unanimity (consensus)

3. cohesion

4. status

5. public response

6. prior commitment

Conforming Factors: Group Size

- small group can have big effect; 3 to 5 people

- the way a group is packaged

- agreement of independent small groups makes a position more credible

Conforming Factors: Group Unanimity

-Even a lone ally decreases likelihood to conform

-The ally could even be giving a wrong answer or different from your own

- easier to stand up for something if you can find someone else to stand up with you

- observing someone else's dissent even when wrong can increase our independence

Conforming Factors: Cohesion

- minority opinion from someone outside the groups we identify with sways us less than same minority opinion from someone within our group

- the more cohesive a group is, the more power it gains over its members

- The extent to which we are attracted to a social group are bound together

- people within an ethnic group may feel similar "own-group conformity pressure": to talk, act, and dress just as everyone else does in their own group

- group members who feel attracted to the group are more responsive to its influence

- fearing rejection by group members who allow them a certain power

- The more cohesive a group is, the greater the demand for conformity

status

higher-status people tend to have more impact

- acknowledge more conformity to their group than do senior group members

- people of lower status accepted the experimenter's commands more readily than people of higher status

public response

people conform more when they must respond in front of others rather than writing their answers privately

- after hearing others respond were less influenced by group pressure if they could write answers that only the experimenter would see

- much easier to stand up for what we believe in the privacy of the voting booth

prior commitment

- prior commitments restrain persuasion too

- making a public commitment makes people hesitant to back down

why conform?: Normative influence

Influence that produces conformity because a person fear the negative consequences of deviating from others. The goal is to be accepted. Ie. a kid deciding to shoplift because friends are doing it

conformity based on a person's desire to fulfill others' expectations, often to gain acceptance

- desire to be liked or gain their approval

- going along with the crowd to avoid rejection

- leads to compliance

- sways us without our awareness

- concern for social image

why conform?: Informational influence

- conformity occuring when people accept evidence about reality provided by other people

- desire to be right/correct

- captures how beliefs are spread

- leads people to privately accept others influence

social rejection

is painful when we deviate from group norms, we often pay an emotional price

- high price of deviation compels people to support what they don't believe in or suppress their disagreement

- brain regions associated with emotion became active via fMRI

- conformity is greater when people respond publicly before a group

who conforms?

1. personality

2. culture

3. social roles

who conforms: personality

- predicting greater conformity were unknown

- individual differences clearly existed

- hgiehr agreeableness and conscientiousness: conform

- openness: less likely to conform

- both personality and the stiuation shape behavior

who conforms: Culture

- collectivistic; higher rates

- individualistic; lower rates

nonconformity; creative problem solving = groups thrive when coordinating their responses to threats

conformity; social norms regarding food prep, thinking of pathogens

cultural differences also exist within social classes

who conforms: social roles

allow some freedom of interpreation to those who act them out, but some aspects of any role must be performed

- powerful effects

- internalize the role, self-consciousness subsides

- reconform to one's former roles before being back in sync

role reversal

- positive force

- people sometimes change themselves or empathize with people whose roles differ from their own

- vary with culture, but the processses by which those roles influence behavior vary much less

- often come in pairs defined by relationships

do we ever want to be different factors

- may act according to our own values, independently of the forces that push upon us

- knowing someone wants to coerce; opposite

1. reactance

2. asserting uniqueness

reactance

A motive to protect or restore one's sense of freedom. Reactance arises when someone threatens our freedom of action.

boomerang effect

attempts to restrict a person's freedom produce anticonformity

- bec we know we should do it, it becomes difficult to actually do it without feeling our freedom is compromised

asserting uniqueness

people feel unconformtable when they appear too diff from others

- individualistic; feel uncomfy when too similar

- nonconformity has become associated with high status

- people feel better when they see themselves as moderately unique and act in ways that will assert their individuality

- deprived of their feeling of uniqueness were the ones most likely to assert their individuality by nonconformity

- individuals who have the highest "need for uniqueness" tend to conform the least

- seeing oneself as unique also appears in people's spontaneous self-concepts

- become more keenly aware of our gender when we are with people of the other gender

- rivalry is often most intense when the other group closely resembles you

- better than the average

Why did people participate in Milgram Study?

-Foot-in-the-door, escalation of demands

-Novel situation

-Perceived authority figure

-Question of responsibility