Conformity I

1
Conformity I
PSY 300
2
(No Transcript)
3
Conformity

• Defined as changing ones behaviour or beliefs in
  response to explicit or implicit (whether real or
  imagined) pressure from others.

4
Topics 50mins

• Intro (5)
• The Hazards of Social Influence
• VIDEO candid camera face the rear (10)
• Sherifs Informational Social Influence (15)
• Solomon Aschs studies (20)

5

• VIDEO Face the rear segment from Candid
  Camera.

6
Sherifs experiments

• Muzafer Sherif (1906-1978)
• 1936 experiment on Informational Social
  Influence
• Wanted to see how people use other people as a
  social frame of reference
• Used the autokinetic illusion
• Subjects gradually made use of others responses
  as Social Information

7
Sherifs experiments
8
The Asch Experiment

• 1951 2nd most famous study in social psychology
• Ostensibly a simple perceptual discrimination
  task choose the matching line

9
(No Transcript)
10
The Asch Experiment
conformity level

• number of confederates

11
The Asch Experiment

• Reasoning is normative, rather than informational
  social influence.
• Notably, if one confederate breaks the unanimity,
  if there is one dissenting voice, the dramatic
  effects of conformity are erased, and
  participants feel free to give the correct
  answers that seemed obvious all along.

12
Conformity II
PSY 300
13
Topics

• The hazards of social influence cont
• Stanley Milgrams studies (30)
• Relation to real events WWII and the Nuremburg
  trials (10)
• Philip Zimbardos study (5)
• Relation to real events - Abu Ghraib (5)

14
The milgram experiments
15
The milgram experiments

• Results proximity of experimenter
• Exp. 1 Standard methodology
• No subject stopped before 300 volts (just before
  extreme intense shock label)
• 26/40 (65) completed the experiment, going to
  450 volts
• Exp. 2 Experimenter communicates by phone
• Full compliance drops to 21
• Some participants faked continuing to the
  experimenter
• Indicates that proximity from authority figure
  increases dissent

16
The milgram experiments

• Results proximity of victim
• Exp. 3 Proximity - Learner in same room
• Full compliance drops to 40
• Exp. 4 Touch Proximity Teacher physically
  places learners hand on the shock plate
• Full compliance drops to 30
• Some participants faked continuing to the
  experimenter
• Together, experiments 3 and 4 indicate that
  proximity to victim increases dissent

17
The milgram experiments

• Results authority
• Exp. 10 Moved from Yale to non-descript
  building
• Full compliance drops to 47.5 (still quite
  high)
• Exp. 13 Ordinary Man (confederate) gives orders
• After experimenter leaves, a second subject
  suggests that shock level moves up
• Full compliance still 20
• Exp 13a Ordinary Man takes over, Subject as
  Bystander
• All 16 participants protested, with 4 physically
  restraining him

18
The milgram experiments

• Results dissent
• Exp. 15 Two authorities giving contradictory
  commands
• Good cop/Bad cop routine
• 18/20 stopped when they first disagreed
• Exp. 17 Two peers (confederate) rebel, n40
• 1st peer refuses at 150-volts, 3/39remaining quit
• 2nd peer refuses, 12/27remaining quit
• 4/20 (20) fully comply

19
behfel ist behfelexperiment 18

• The Nuremburg trials of 1945-1949
• 24 Nazi leaders accused of
• Crimes against peace
• War crimes
• Crimes against humanity
• Exp. 18 Peer (confederate) administers shocks
• Subjects were accessory to shocking, but not
  pressing the button
• 37/40 (92.5) fully complied with their complicit
  role

20
Philip zimbardo and The stanford prison experiment

• Guards and Prisoners recruited from Stanford
  university undergraduate population
• Were paid todays equivalent of 76/day
• Zimbardo picked the 24 most psychology stable
  of the 70 respondents
• Prisoners were picked up by police, booked, and
  locked in the mock jail in the Psych dpt.
• Role playing was so intense that experiment was
  cancelled after 6 days, instead of planned 2
  weeks

21
Zimbardo and abu ghraib
a few bad apples or a barrel of vinegar?
22
Conformity III
PSY 300
23
Topics(50)

• What has changed? (15)
• The Wisdom of Crowds?
• Interpreting Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo (15)
• The logic behind the conformist bias (15)
• Lessons The value of nonconformity, the power of
  the situation, and the malleability of the person
  (5)

24
Ever since aschWhat has changed?

• Would Milgram happen today?
• Would Asch happen today?
• 1996 Meta-analysis by Bond and Smith shows a
  steady decline in conformity since the original
  Asch studies
• Why?
• What do these studies tell us about how we should
  live our lives?

25
The wisdom of crowds?

• The applicability of the conformity experiments
• The disingenuousness of the studies
• Milgrams strange use of authority.
• Aschs strange use of confederates.
• Sherifs misleading autokinetic illusion task.

26
The wisdom of crowds?
The slaughtered Ox By rembrandt
27
The wisdom of crowds?
28
Factors influencing collective wisdom

• Diversity of opinion
• Each person should have private information even
  if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the
  known facts.
• Independence
• People's opinions aren't determined by the
  opinions of those around them.

29
lessons

• The perils and promises of social influence
• The freedom of ideas and the diversity of opinion
  is a social good a benefit to everyone.
  Restrictions, legal or simply normative, on this
  freedom costs everyone.
• A balance must be struck between obedience to
  social norms and civic life, and retaining the
  integrity to dissent from illegitimate authority
  to see no sir, I will not continue, and if you
  ask me once more, youd better put your glasses
  down