Conformity and Obedience Study Notes

Definition: Indirect pressure to change behavior to match group norms.
Characteristics:
- Based on the behavior of others.
- Usually unconscious and indirect.
- Often a rational strategy but can lead to negative outcomes.

Autokinetic Illusion: A stationary light appears to move in a dark room.
Method: Participants estimated how much the light moved while in groups.
- Estimates influenced by group responses, leading to a convergence on a group norm.
Findings:
- The desire to feel appropriate drives conformity.
- Group norms persisted even when participants were alone.
- Most participants denied being influenced by others.

Objective: Investigate conformity with clear stimuli (line length comparison).
Method: Groups of 7-9, with confederates giving incorrect answers.
- Control condition had less than 1% incorrect answers when alone.
Results:
- 33% conformity rate overall; half conformed on six or more trials.
- 25% of participants gave correct answers consistently; 95% did not conform at least once.

Personality Traits: Self-esteem, need for approval, anxiety, IQ.
Group Size: Minimum of 3-5 members needed to influence.
Unanimity: Presence of dissenters can reduce conformity.
Confidence in Responses: Higher confidence in minority can decrease conformity rates.

Egebark & Ekström (2018): More likely to like posts on social media that already have multiple 'likes'.

Many texts overemphasize conformity at the expense of independence.
Asch's findings also showed instances of independence, which were often ignored.

Minority can influence majority with consistency and conviction.
Even if direct persuasion fails, it can unsettle prevailing norms, paving the way for future changes.

Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971): Demonstrated the impact of assigned roles on behavior.
Process: Participants assigned roles as guards or prisoners, leading to extreme behavior changes.
Results: Cruelty emerged from situational pressures rather than personal characteristics.
- Experiment ended due to severe psychological impact on participants.
Critiques: Self-selection bias in participants may have led to atypical results.

Investigated the extent to which individuals would follow orders to harm others.
Results: 75% of participants obeyed commands to administer shocks; 100% proceeded to 300V shocks despite distress.
Critiques:
- Study not purely about obedience; factors like trust influenced outcomes.
- Alternative explanations for behavior include belief in the scientific importance of the study.
- Recognizes impact of personal connection on willingness to obey.

Conformity: Evidence shows people alter beliefs to fit in.
Obedience: Highlights the potential for individuals to harm others under authority.
Compliance: Indicates that social structures can facilitate cruelty without explicit commands.
Implications: Raises important questions regarding social responsibility and ethics in behavior.