08B-1 - How would you respond if you How would you respond...

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: How would you respond if you How would you respond if you were a subject in these two studies? STANDARD LINE COMPARISON LINES VOLTAGE INTENSITY -30 GHT OCK 90-120 MODERATE SHOCK 150-180 STRONG SHOCK 210-240 VERY STRONG SHOCK 270-300 330-360 INTENSE SHOCK EXTREME INTENSITY SHOCK 390 DANGER SEVERE SHOCK 435 450 XXX At what level of shock would you refuse to continue? ___________ At what shock level would the average student in this class refuse to continue? _____ What % of subjects in this study do you think would go all the way to 450 volts? __________ Have you seen or read about the Milgram study before? ______ SOCIAL INFLUENCE SOCIAL INFLUENCE The Phenomena of Conformity and Compliance CONFORMITY CONFORMITY s s A change in behavior due to perceived influence of others Can be due to – Normative influence ­ The desire to be accepted/approved of. Involves public compliance, without private acceptance of norm – Informational Influence ­ The desire to be correct/accurate. Involves private acceptance of norm. Conformity & Norms Conformity & Norms s s Norm ­ Rule or standard for what is acceptable, appropriate, or correct in terms of judgment, value, perception, belief, behavior. Sherif’s studies on the emergence and perseverance of group norms – Autokinetic effect = stimulus ambiguity – Spontaneous convergence of estimates (norm emergence) – How estimates endured (norm perseverance) Est . of m ovem ent ( in. ) Emergence of Norms ­ Informational Emergence of Norms ­ Informational Influence (Sherif, 1936) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Subj ect 1 Subj ect 2 Subj ect 3 Alone 1 2 Trial 3 Informational Influence Informational Influence Judgments of movement are completely subjective ­ “reality” is ambiguous s Minimal “pressure” to conform s Inflated norm persevered through numerous trials, even when S gave estimates alone. s Normative Influence ­ Asch’s Conformity Research s s Ss judgments of line length ­ “reality” is unambiguous When alone, Ss chose correct line 99% of the time STANDARD LINE COMPARISON LINES Normative Influence ­ Asch’s Normative Influence ­ Asch’s Conformity Research When the rest of the group expresses an incorrect judgment, does the subject go along? s Normative influence ­ changing behavior to be accepted or approved of by others s Proportion of Conformity Proportion of Conformity RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY % of students who said they would conform in an Asch line­length study % t rails w here Ss conf orm ed 50 40 30 20 10 0 % conformity in Asch st udy % self­predicted % self­predict ed conformit y in previous conformit y in this class classes Follow Up Studies Follow Up Studies Later, Asch measured the effect of having at least one confederate dissent & give the correct answer Add group size – conformity here Add group size – conformity here Conformity Increases Conformity Increases When: s Subject is solitary dissenter s Group size increases s The behavior is public s People are unsure of a situation s People are of lower status s The motivation to be accurate is high (informational influence) and ambiguity is high Need to be accurate increases Need to be accurate increases informational influence (Baron et al., 1996) 60 50 % agreeing 40 with 30 incorrect majority 20 High Ambiguity Low Ambiguity 10 0 Low High Level of I mportance Compliance with Requests Compliance with Requests Mindless compliance ­ the role of automaticity in compliance s Two techniques for obtaining compliance with requests: – “Foot­in­the­door” – “Door­in­the­face” s Foot­In­The­Door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) Foot­In­The­Door (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) 60 50 40 % agreeing to put up 30 ugly sign 20 10 0 Ugly sign only Sign Petition then Ugly Sign “Door­in­the­face” (Cialdini et al., 1975) 50 45 40 % 35 complying 30 with 25 moderate 20 requests 15 10 5 0 Moderate Request only Moderate Request preceded by Large Request Obedience Obedience (Compliance with Authority) s s Milgram tested obedience to authority by having a subject (assigned to role of “teacher”) shock a learner (his confederate) with increasingly stronger shocks for errors The confederate first complains, then screams, then ceases responding s E orders subject to continue the shocks s How far would Ss go? How far would you go? Positions of Subject, Confederate, and Positions of Subject, Confederate, and Experimenter in Milgram Experiment Milgram’s Shock Generator Milgram’s Shock Generator 12 of 15 RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY What % of Milgram’s Ss would go to 450? 70 60 50 Pct going 40 to 450 30 20 10 0 Familiar Unfamiliar Actual RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY RESULTS: CLASS SURVEY M ean Shock Volt age Predicted voltages at which this class said they and the average RU student would stop 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 You would stop Avg. Actual Mean classmate Shock would stop Delivered Explaining Milgram’s Findings Explaining Milgram’s Findings s Explanations: – “Foot­in­the­door” – Cognitive dissonance / Self­ justification – External attribution for Ss behavior – Power of situation (Arendt’s “banality of evil”) Varying the Conditions ­ Increasing or Varying the Conditions ­ Increasing or Decreasing Compliance s s s s s Distance of Authority Distance of Victim Status of Authority Status of Individual Presence of others and their behavior Implications of Milgram’s Findings Implications of Milgram’s Findings s s s s Ss were “weak” or sadistic people ­ fundamental attribution error “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any particular hostility, can become agents in a terrible destructive process” (S. Milgram) External Validity? Ethical issues in this experiment ­ long­term follow­up with Ss. Other Variables Affecting Other Variables Affecting Compliance and Conformity in Group Contexts s s s s s Unanimity Cohesion Public vs. Private Behavior Prior Commitment Novelty or Ambiguity of Situation ­ Informational Influence Individual Differences in Compliance Individual Differences in Compliance and Conformity s s s Gender Personality factors – Agreeableness, Conscientiousness – Would we resist such influence or are we deluded? Cultural factors (Individualist vs. Collectivist) Summing up the research on Summing up the research on conformity and compliance What do the results of these studies tell us about “human nature”? ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/02/2012 for the course 830 321 taught by Professor K.brynildsen during the Spring '10 term at Rutgers.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online