LECTURE 7 Conformity

1) Administration2) Chameleon Effect3) Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study4) Asche’s Conformity Studies5) Milgram’s Obedience Studies6) Break7) Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study8) Video on Conformity9) Resisting Conformity10) Next Class

Questions?

Conformity

• Definition: A change in behaviour or beliefs due to the real or imagined influence of other people.

• Social Norms: The implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviours, values, and beliefs of its members.

Chameleon Effect

• Definition: The nonconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, and facial expressions of one’s interaction partner.

• The mere perception of another’s behaviour can automatically increase the likelihood of engaging in that behaviour oneself.

Chameleon EffectChartrand & Bargh, 1999

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Confederate Rubs Face Confederate Shakes Foot

Nu

mb

er

of

Tim

es

Participant Rubs Face

Participant Shakes Foot

Chameleon Effect

• Does this behaviour occur automatically? Consciously?

• Why do we mimic others?

Social Influence

Informational Social Influence

vs.

Normative Social Influence

Informational Social Influence

• We conform because we believe that others’ interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more correct than ours and this interpretation will help us choose an appropriate course of action.

• Acceptance: Conformity that involves both acting and believing in accord with social pressure.

• We conform because we think this is the “right” way to act in this situation.

Autokinetic Study (Sherif, 1936)

Sherif's (1936) Autokinetic Study

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Alone Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

Est

imat

e o

f m

ove

men

t (i

nch

es)

Participant 1

Participant 2

Participant 3

When do we conform to informational social

influence?

1. When the situation is ambiguous• Fire alarms

2. When there is a crisis3. When others are experts

Normative Social Influence

• Conforming in order to be liked and accepted or to fulfil others’ expectations. This type of conformity results in public compliance (but not private acceptance) of the group’s beliefs and behaviours.

• Public Compliance: Conformity that involves publicly acting in accordance with social pressure while privately disagreeing.

Social Pressure Study (Asch, 1951)

1 2 3

Social Pressure Study (Asch, 1951)

Social Pressure Study (Asch, 1951)

Social Pressure Study (Asch, 1951)

0

10

20

30

40

0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12

Number of trials on which participants conformed

% p

art

icip

an

ts c

on

form

ing

*** 76% of the participants conformed at least once giving an answer they knew to be wrong.

Questions?

Types of Conformity

• Conformity: A change in behaviour or beliefs due to the real or imagined influence of other people. This can occur for informational reasons in which we use the other person as a cue to know how to respond correctly. However, we also conform because we want others to like/respect us.

• Compliance: Conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing.

• Obedience: Conformity that is related to a direct order from other people.

Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study

• “Teachers” believe they are delivering shocks to a “learner” (appear to be randomly assigned to the roles).

• Every time the learner gets an answer wrong, he gets a shock that increases in intensity.

• Strongly encouraged by the experimenter to continue, even when the “learner” protests.

Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study

0

1

0 75"Moderate"

150 "Strong"

225 "Very strong"

300 "Intense"

375 "Dangersevere"

450 "XXX"

Makes noise

“I want to

quit!”

“This hurts!”

“Ouwwww, this really hurts!”

Stops responding

Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study

• Normative social influence – He says “It is absolutely essential that you continue” (You think “… I did commit to doing this study…what will he think of me if I mess up his study now?”)

• Informational social influence – Because the situation is ambiguous/novel, we are unsure, and so we look to the expert/the experimenter (You think “… he must know what he is doing”)

Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study

40

60

80

100

0 75"Moderate"

150 "Strong"

225 "Verystrong"

300 "Intense"

375 "Dangersevere"

450 "XXX"

Learner says he wants to stop.

Obedience Across StudiesP

erce

ntag

e fu

lly o

bedi

ent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

baseline admin hearttrouble

sketchylab

visualproximity

touchproximity

phone clerk

*

Experimental Version

Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study

Explanations (other than normative and informational influences) for why people obeyed:

1. On automatic pilot to “obey the experimenter.” We may adhere to norms in mindless ways. Fast-pace doesn’t allow for much thought.

2. Increased in small increments (like the foot-in-the-door technique). Self-justification.

3. Not evil people but bad situation.

Questions?

Stanford Prison Study Zimbardo (1971)

Personality versus Situation- Results of the Milgram Study- Goals of the Stanford Prison Study

Whether the situation defined guards’ and prisoners’ brutality and behaviours or whether it was related to the personality of people who took on those roles?

- Bad apples or bad barrel?

Social RoleShared expectations by group members about how particular people in the group ought to behave.

Stanford Prison StudyZimbardo (1971)

1) Zimbardo randomly assigned university students to role-play being either guards or prisoners.

2) Guards were given uniforms, whistles, and clubs and were told to enforce the rules.

3) Prisoners were given uniforms and locked in cells.

What do you think happened?

Stanford Prison StudyZimbardo (1971)

Although this study was originally planned for 2 weeks after only 6 days they had to stop the study because of the hostility of the prison guards and the mental and physical deterioration of the prisoners.

Video on Milgram Studies and Stanford Prison Study

Deindividuation

Definition:• The loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people are in a group,

leading to an increase in impulsive (and deviant) acts• Groups can:

• make people feel less accountable for their actions (e.g., mob behaviour, egging on jumpers)

• decrease self-awareness• make people more likely to obey group norms

Stanford Prison Study

In the Stanford Prison Study, students were deindividuated by roles, by groups, by costumes, no names, sunglasses, hats, etc.

What was the social norm in this situation? Why?

Social Norms in Chilean mine collapse in 2010.

Deindividuation

Johnson and Downing’s (1979)

A verbal learning experiment. The subject is the teacher. After each error, the subject can choose to increase or decrease the level of shock to learner (+3, +2, +1, -1, -2, -3)

Deindividuation

• Social cue independent variable: Everyone is asked to wear white outfits. Told that pictures of each person in their group in their costumes would be given to all members.

• Prosocial cues – asked to put on nurses outfitsor• Anti-social cues – asked to put on KKK outfit

• Deindividuation independent variable:• Told no way to identify who gave what shocks and

no name tagsor• Told other group members could see their selection

of shock levels and wore name tags

Deindividuation

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Nurse Outfit KKK Outfit

Individuated

Deindividuated

Resisting Social Pressure

Reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)An attempt to restore one’s sense of freedom.

Flexible Correction Model (Wegener & Petty, 1997)Based on our naïve theories of influence,we correct for:

- The direction of perceived influence- The extent of perceived influence

Flexible Correction Model (Wegener & Petty, 1997)

Example of flexible correction processesPlease write an essay about Stephen Harper.

But … first I want to tell you all the positive things I know about Stephen Harper.

How do you think this initial context will influence your essays? How much do you think this initial context will influence your essays?

orBut … first I want to tell you all the negative things I know about Stephen Harper.

How do you think this initial context will influence your essays? How much do you think these initial contexts will influence your essays?

Procedure: Telephone survey

2 Independent Variables:Mood: Sunny vs. Rainy Spring days

Priming: Direct vs. Indirect- Indirect: How is the weather there?- Direct: This study is about measuring the effects of weather on mood

Dependent VariableJudgment: How satisfied are you with your life?

How might your mood (i.e., sunny vs. rainy days) influence your ratings of life satisfaction in general? (assimilation effects)

Mood and Life SatisfactionSchwarz & Clore, 1983

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Indirect Priming Direct Priming

SunnyRainy

Mood and Life SatisfactionSchwarz & Clore, 1983

(Assimilation Effect) (Corrected Effect)

Lif

e S

atis

fact

ion

2 Independent Variables:Location: Rate how much you like the following locations: your dream vacation place vs. neutral vacation place- Dream: Hawaii - Neutral: Minneapolis

Instructions: No Instructions vs. Correction Instructions- No Instructions- Correction Instructions: Try not to let your ratings be influenced by initial location

Dependent VariableJudgment: How would you like to spend 2 weeks vacation in Kansas?

How might thinking about an initial vacation destination influence your ratings of Kansas City in general? (contrast effects)

Context and Evaluations of Kansas

Petty & Wegner, 1993

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

No Instructions CorrectionInstructions

Dream CityNeutral City

(Contrast Effect) (Corrected Effect)

Context and Evaluations of Kansas

Petty & Wegner, 1993A

ttit

ude

tow

ard

Kan

sas

Vac

atio

n

Flexible Correction Model (Wegener & Petty, 1997)

Based on our naïve theories of influence,we correct for:- The direction of perceived influence

(either assimilation or contrast effects)- Extent of perceived influence

To correct we need:- Motivation and Ability

Resisting Social Pressure

Heroes are those who can somehow resist the power of the situation and act out of noble motives, or behave in ways that do not demean others when they easily can.Philip Zimbardo

My Lai Massacre – Hugh Thompson

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-hkFa2lSNAGc/hugh_thompson_jr/

Check out:

Moral Courage in Combat: The My Lai Story – Hugh Thompson

Summary

• Chameleon Effect

• Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study

• Asch’s Conformity Studies • Milgram’s Obedience Studies

• Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study

• Resisting Conformity