Download Conformity • Adjusting one`s behavior or attitudes to fit with those of

Conformity
• Adjusting one’s behavior or attitudes to fit with
those of peers or other group.
• Yielding to real or imagined social pressure.
• The pressure to conform can be very strong,
though may be subtle
• e.g., conforming to the fashion of the day
Asch experiments (1951 ff)
[describe]
Experiment proceeds
…
1 2 3
• 18 trials overall
• On 12 of trials, all confederates gave
wrong answer (same wrong answer)
• Results >
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
Conformed half the
time or more = 30%
Never conformed =
25%
Conformed at least
once = 75%
• Why did most subjects conform?
• most said they did not really believe their
conforming answers
• but had gone along with the group for
fear of being ridiculed or thought
"peculiar”
(A few said that they really did believe the
group's answers were correct.)
Factors influencing conformity in Asch experiment
• Number of others?
• Up to a point, yes (from 2 to 7)
• But beyond 7, not much difference
• Unanimity: very important
• Effects of a “dissenter” [explain]:
• Conformity dropped markedly
• Even when the “dissenter” gave wrong answer! (S
would then give correct answer)
---------------------------------------
Obedience to authority
• Experiments by Stanley Milgram
• Setup
• greeted by Experimenter….
•
Introduces man, supposedly another participant…….….
• Explains nature/purpose of experiment
• draw lots…. true subject always ends up
being teacher
• The “other participant” (who is actually an
‘actor’ who is accomplice of the experimenter)
becomes “learner”
• Nature of task is explained
• Shock generator shown and explained
• Layout is explained
Teacher
Learner
• “learner” seated in next room
• shown how to indicate his responses
• “Training” session proceeds
• Then “learner” is tested
• Makes many mistakes; receives escalating shocks
(or so teacher believes)
•
•
•
•
NB: “teacher” is true subject of this experiment
In this original setup, can’t hear him
“Protest”: after 300 V. shock, pounds on wall;
If S continues with session, gives one more (wrong)
answer, pounds again after shock, then stops responding
• [Describe how E responds to this]
• Prediction of results?
• Results of original experiment (as just
described• 65% of Ss fully obedient
• First variation on original experiment
• [describe]
• Learner mentions heart condition
• Escalating vocal expressions of pain and
protest
• Complaint about heart pain at 150 V.
• Blood curdling scream at 330 V., then no
responses
• How Ss responded:
Some subjects…..
Other subjects…..
Results:
• 62% of Ss fully obedient
• Further variations:
• As above, but learner now in room,
suffering can be seen
• Results: obedience dropped-- to 40%
• As above, but….
• Results: Obedience fell….to 25%
• Other variations
• S plays subsidiary role (reads word list),
someone else presses shock lever
• Results: >90% obedient
• S told at outset, he/she personally
responsible….
• Results:
• 10% obedience; few delivered shocks > 150 V.
[Discussion]
• Conclusions:
• Situational factors important
• Key factor is perception of authority figure’s
legitimacy
Attitude change: The effect of cognitive dissonance
• Leon Festinger’s experiment
• [Describe….]
• Question: Which Ss (if any) would change attitude towards
experiment ($1 reward group vs. $20 reward group)?
• Festinger’s prediction: Ss who received $1 would
come to think more positively of the task
• Based on theory of cognitive dissonance
• [Describe]
• [Describe dilemma of Ss in $20 v. $1 groups]
• Dissonance reduction strategies available after
acting contrary to one’s beliefs/attitudes
• Change attitude to bring it line with behavior
Have a great holiday!