Conformity 2011-Day 2-class

Conformity 2011-Day 2-class - Conformity Conformity …The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Conformity Conformity …The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act (Milgram, 1974). Obedience Obedience A change in behavior due to the commands of authority. Indicators of authority: Title/position Wealth Power Why do we obey? David Kresh. Apocalyptic group in Wacko, TX. Nazis Milgram’s obedience study Milgram’s obedience study Power of the situation Teacher­learner paradigm watch learner being strapped into chair ­­ learner expresses concern over his “heart condition” 15­450 volts as punishment for “learner” give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes Milgram’s obedience study Milgram’s obedience study Learner responses 75 volts – Grunt in pain 120 volts –“Ugh! Hey this really hurts.” 150 volts – “That’s all…Get me out of here I refuse to continue” “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” 300 volts – (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out.” refuses to continue 350 volts+ ­ Silent Milgram’s obedience studies Milgram’s obedience studies Experimenter’s prods. Authority figure. 1: Please continue 2: The experimenter requires that you continue 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue 4: You have no other choice; you must go on Milgram’s obedience studies Milgram’s obedience studies Participants’ reactions Trembling Perspiring Nervous laughter Fidgeting Smoking Biting lips Visible signs of stress Milgram’s obedience study Milgram’s obedience study Psychologists, students, lay public thought Stop at 135 volts (average) <1% would go to 450 volts Milgram’s obedience study Milgram’s obedience study What did the participant do? Shock level Slight­strong shock (15­240) Intense shock (255­300) Extreme intensity shock (315­360) Danger: Severe shock (375­420) “XXX” (435­450) % Obeying 100% 88% 68% 65% 65% Factors that affect obedience Factors that affect obedience Informational social influence New situation Normative social influence Approval from experimenter, authority figure. Factors that affect obedience Factors that affect obedience The authority Physical presence of authority figure Closer=more obedience. When the experimenter phoned in the order, obedience dropped to 21% Legitimacy Authority figure and the institution were perceived as legitimate= more obedience. Ordinary person command= dropped to 20% Factors that affect obedience Factors that affect obedience The victim Physical proximity Farther away the victim is = more obedience Learner same room = 40% obey Touch learner = 30% obey Factors that affect obedience Factors that affect obedience The procedure Gradual escalation of shocks (similar to foot­in­th­ door) Diffusion of responsibility. Responsibility of the institution. (participant as bystander) Peer modeling. Dissenters and escalations. Dissenters When dissenters were present, obedience dropped to 10% Refer to the scale on the vertical y axis to determine the % of subjects Refer to the scale on the vertical y axis to determine the % of subjects who obeyed in administering shocks in the various situations. 2006 Study – Dr. Jerry Burger 2006 Study – Dr. Jerry Burger 70 Participants Human subject protections Stop at 150 volts (self report willingness to go on) Did not include Ps with psychiatric disorders Experimenter was a clinical psychologist 2006 Study – Dr. Jerry Burger 2006 Study – Dr. Jerry Burger Base condition: 70% had to be stopped after administering the 150 volts (prediction: they would have gone on to 450 volts) Men and women did not differ in their rates of obedience Some evidence that individual differences in desire for control = less obedience Ethical Issues Ethical Issues Participants (teachers) experienced a high level of stress Foreseeable harm? 84% said they were glad to have participated No evidence of permanent harm Had psychologists follow up Ps French game show “This is Dr. Smith, from Psychiatry, calling. I was asked to see Mr. Jones this morning, and I’m going to have to see him again tonight. I don’t have a lot of time, and I’d like him to have some medication by the time I get to the ward. Will you please check your medicine cabinet and see if you have some Astroten? That’s A­S­T­R­ O­T­E­N. The medicine cabinet contains a pillbox: ASTROTEN 5 mg. capsules Usual dose: 5 mg Maximum daily dose: 10 mg The researcher continues, “You have it? Fine. Please give Mr. Jones 20 milligrams of Astroten, that’s 4 capsules. I’ll be up in 10 minutes, and I’ll sign the order then, but I’d like the drug to have started taking effect. Astroten study Astroten study 95% of the nurses dispensed the medication. Only 6% of surveyed nurses said they would obey Summary of social influence studies Summary of social influence studies Topic Researcher Method Real­life example Informational Influence Sherif Autokinetic effect Normative Influence Asch Line judgments Obedience Milgram Commands to Employees following give shocks Watching others in a new place to learn Fashion/hair fads questionable orders ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online