CHAPTER 6: CONFORMITY and OBEDIENCE WHAT IS CONFORMITY?

Acting as other people act A change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure Ex: A new person in a group tends to follow what the members are doing in order to fit in and establish social relationship. Varieties of Conformity ACCEPTANCE - Genuinely believing in what a group has persuaded us to do and accept that belief. Ex: We eat vegetables because we believed and accepted that eating these promotes a healthy lifestyle. COMPLIANCE - Outwardly going along with the group while inwardly disagreeing Ex: When a person is forced to join in a fraternity and some tasks are against him, he still follows what has been ordered to him. OBEDIENCE - Compliance with direct command - conforming to get a reward or avoid punishment Ex: A child follows her mothers commands for a candy in return. Classic Conformity and Obedience Studies Sherifs studies of Norm Formation - Muzafer Sherif - Observe the emergence of social norms in a laboratory setting o He used an optical illusion technique called Autokinetic phenomenon o Others judgments influence peoples estimates of the movement of a point of light. Norms for answers emerged and survived over long periods of time o Shows the automatic influence of information sharing among individuals

o Peter Totterdel mood linkage being around people makes us feel happier. Mood linkage is an unconscious contagious-like effect on a person . o Chameleon Effect (Chartrand&Bargh) - the natural tendency to imitate another persons expressions and postures. imitation fosters fondness imitation of anger fosters disliking establish social bonds

o Suggestibility leads conformity Studies show that suggestibility can lead a person to conform. Ex: imitative suicides on a specific area or location

Aschs Studies of Group Pressure Social Psychologist Aschs made an experiment about conformity. The experimenter explains that you will be in a study of perceptual judgments along with several people, and then asks you to say which one matches the standard. The first and second comparison is easy, but the third trial startles you. Although the correct answer seems just as clear-cut, everyone else answers are the same except for yours. This is where you experience an epistemological dilemma: What is true? Is it what my peers tell me or what my eyes tell me? All who experienced the experiment told that 37 percent of the responses were conforming The experiment show that most people tell the truth even when others do not Aschs feelings about the conformity were as clear as the correct answers to his questions: That reasonably intelligent and wellmeaning young people are willing to call white black as a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct.

Milgrams Obedience Experiments One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram (1963) Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience Aim: Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person Procedure: Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating learning (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional At the beginning of the experiment they were introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter The learner (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair in another room with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger severe shock) The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock and turned to the experimenter for guidance, he was given the standard instruction /order (consisting of 4 prods)
Prod 1: please continue. Prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue.

Results: 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued

to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.

 Milgram did more than one experiment he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV) Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Obey parents, teachers, anyone in authority etc.

Reflections on the Classic Studies The common results to Milgrams results is to note their counterparts in the I was only following orders defenses of Adolf Eichmann, in Nazi Germany; of American Leiutenant William Calley who directed the unprovoked slaughter of hundreds of Vietnamese in the village of My Lai. Soldiers are trained to obey superiors, thus the participants obey the commands of Lieutenant Calley, despite of it being such inhumane acts. The safe scientific contexts of the obedience experiments differ from the wartime contexts. Moreover, much of the mockery and brutality of war and genocide goes beyond obedience. Some of those who implemented the Holocaust were willing executioners who hardly needed to be commanded to kill.

 The obedience experiments differ from the other conformity experiments in the strength of social pressure: Obedience is explicitly commanded.

Commonalities The Asch and the Milgram experiments showed how compliance can take precedence over moral sense. They succeeded in pressuring people to go against their consciences. They sensitized us to moral conflicts in our own lives. They illustrated and affirmed two familiar social psychological principles: the link between behavior and attitudes and the power of the situation. Behavior and Attitudes Sometimes, attitudes fail to determine behavior: when external influences override inner convictions In Aschs experiment: When responding alone, the participants nearly always gave the correct answer. It was another matter though, when they stood alone against a group. In the obedience experiments, a powerful social pressure (the experimenters commands) overcame a weaker one (the remote victims pleas).

 Due to the entrapment of the foot-in-the-door phenomenon (Zapping the learner w/ increasing amount of volts), the participants were therefore in a different psychological state from that of someone beginning the experiment up to the end. External behavior and internal disposition can feed each other, sometimes in an escalating spiral. -Once having acted against the victim, these subjects found it necessary to view him as an unworthy individual, whose punishment was made inevitable by his own deficiencies of intellect and character. Compliance bred acceptance In the 1970s, Greeces military junta used the blame-thevictim process to train torturers. Step by step an obedient but otherwise decent person evolved into an agent of cruelty. Staub (2003) shows where gradually increasing aggression can lead. Too often, criticisms systematic killing Evolving attitudes both follow and justify actions In conclusion he says: Human beings have the capacity to come to experience killing other people as nothing extraordinary. The Power of the Situation Culture is a powerful shaper of lives but immediate situational forces are just as powerful. cruelty brutality killing

 In trying to break with social constraints, we suddenly realize how strong they are. Saying what we would do in a hypothetical situation is often easier than doing it in the real situation. Situations can induce ordinary people to capitulate to cruelty. The most terrible evil evolves from a sequence of small evils. Accdg to Milgram The most fundamental lesson of our study is that people, simply by doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part can become agents in a terrible, destructive process. So does a situational analysis of harm-doing exonerate harmdoers? Does it absolve them of responsibility? Accdg to Psychologists: No. To explain is not to excuse. To understand is not to forgive.

Summary of Classic Obedience Studies Topic Norm Formation Researcher Sherif Method Assessing suggestibility regarding seeming movement of light Real-life Ex Interpreting events differently after hearing from others; appreciating a tasty food that others love Doing as others do; Fads such as tattoos

Conformity

Asch

Obedience

Milgram

Agreement with others obviously wrong perceptual judgements Complying with Soldiers or commands to shock employees another following questionable orders.

Lastly The social-psychological experiments offer insights into behavior not readily revealed in everyday life. The experimental situation is unique, but so is every social situation. By testing w/ a variety of unique tasks, and by repeating experiments at different times and places, researchers probe for the common principles that lie beneath the surface diversity.

What predicts conformity? We are more likely tobe influenced by otherswhen we feelincompetent andinsecure aboutourjudgments. Conformity is highestwhen: 1. A group has three or more people 2. A group is unanimous 3. A group is cohesive 4. A group is high in status 5. The response is public 6. The response is made without prior commitment Group Size Asch and other researchers found that 3 to 5 people will elicit much more conformity than just 1 or 2. The agreement of independent small groups makes a position more credible.

Unanimity

Experiments reveal that someone who punctures a groups unanimity deflates its social power. People will usually voice their ownconvictions if justone other personhas also differedfrom the majority. Conformity experiments simply and practically teach us that it is easier to stand up for something if you can find someone else to stand up with you.

Cohesion Cohesiveness is the we feeling; the extent to which members of a group are bound together, such as attraction to one another. A minority opinion from someone outside of the group we identify with sways us less than the same minority opinion from someone within our group. The more cohesive a group is, the morewe fear beingrejected by itsmembers.

Status Higher-status peopletend to have more impact or influence. Milgram (1974) reportedthat people of lower statusaccepted theexperimenterscommands more readilythan people of higherstatus.

Public Response In experiments, people conform more when they must respond in front of others rather than writing their answers privately. It is much easier to standup for what we believe inthe privacy of the votingbooth than before a group.

Prior Commitment People almost neverchange their decisionsor yield to socialpressure when theycommit themselvesto a position. Making a publiccommitment makespeople hesitant to backdown.

Who conforms?

In the search for the conformer, researchers have suggested three predictors: personality, culture, and social roles. Personality During the 1960s and 1970s, researchers observed only weak connections between personal characteristics and social behaviors such as conformity. In contrast with demonstrable power of situational factors, personality scores were poor predictors of individuals behavior. During the 1980s, the idea that personal dispositions make little difference prompted personality researchers to pinpoint the circumstances under which traits do predict behavior. Personality also predicts behavior better when social influences are weak. Miligrams obedience experiments created strong situations; their clear-cut demands made it difficult for personality differences to operate. Culture There may be some biological wisdom to cultural differences in conformity. Although nonconformity supports creative problem solving, groups thrive when coordinating their response to threats. Cultural differences also exist within any country. Ex. Nicole Stephens et. al. (2007) found that working-class people tend to prefer similarity to others, whereas middle-class people more strongly preferred to see themselves as unique individuals. Social Roles Roles theorists have assumed that social life is like acting on a theatrical stage, with all its scenes, masks, and scripts. Social roles allow some freedom of interpretation to those who act them out, but some aspects of any role must be performed. When only a few norms are associated with a social category, we do not regard the position as a social role.

 It takes a whole cluster of norms to define a role. Role Reversals Role playing can also be a positive force. By intentionally playing a new role and conforming to its expectations, people sometimes change themselves or empathize with people whose role differ from their own.

Roles often come in pairs defined by relationships. Role reversals can help us understand each other. This intentional, temporary conformity may repair your relationship. Do people want to be different? Individuals value their sense of freedom and self-efficacy. When blatant pressure threatens their sense of freedom, they often rebel. Ex. Romeo and Juliet Reactance A motive to protect or restore ones sense o freedom. Reactance arises when someone threatens our freedom of actions.

Asserting Uniqueness People feel uncomfortable when they appear too different from others. But in individualistic Western cultures they also feel uncomfortable when they appear exactly like everyone else. People feel better when they see themselves as moderately unique.

Although we do not like being greatly deviant, we are, ironically, all alike in wanting to feel distinctive and in noticing how we are distinctive. But as research on the self-serving bias makes clear, it is not just any kind of distinctiveness we seek but distinctiveness in the right direction.

CHAPTER 6 MEMBERS: Lim, Giann Vanessa Maniulit, Lourcebel Almari Marcos, Marconi Ed Mariano, Alissa Gale Marilla, Alyssa Jania