Social Psychology Chapter 7 October 8, 2004 Class #6 Conformity Social Psychology Chapter 7 October 8, 2004 Class #6

Conformity Changing one’s behavior to match the responses or actions of others (no pressure necessarily)

The Chameleon Effect Chartrand and Bargh (1999) Participant and confederate worked on a task together

Is behavior contagious? Milgram et al. (1969) Research confederates congregated and craned their necks to gawk at a window on the 6th floor of an apartment building 80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed upward

Uncertainty In ambiguous situations, people tend to rely on information provided by others Sherif asked students to judge the apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall Autokinetic Effect A stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move

Sherif (1937) Put yourself in the role of the participant… Day 1 Participant stares at a pinpoint of light about 15 feet away The light seems to be moving but you can’t be sure…after a few seconds it disappears Sherif: How far did it move? Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe about 8 inches

Sherif (1937) Day 2 The participant is now joined by three confederates This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about 15 feet away Again, you think it moved about 8 inches Sherif: How far did it move? Confederate 1: 2 inches Confederate 2: an inch or two Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one inch Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy

Sherif (1937) Day 3 The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “about 4 inches” Day 4 The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “its probably like 2 inches”

Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence Lets look at Asch’s classic research studies involving group pressure… Asch (1951, 1952, 1956)

Asch (1951) Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? In this early version, Asch had 16 “naïve” participants with 1 confederate who gave incorrect answers 1 2 3 A

Asch (1951) Results: Participants laughed at and ridiculed the confederate

Asch’s Research on Group Influence (1951, 1952, 1956) Series of experiments most done with 1 participant and 5-8 confederates Real participant would give their judgment after several confederates had already given theirs

Asch (1956) Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? What would you say if you were in a group of 6 others, and all agreed the answer was 2? 1 2 3 A

Asch (1956) When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct… When confronted by the unanimous incorrect majority, participants conformed 37% of the time…in fact 75% went against their own eyes at least once if the group gave a wrong answer 1 2 3 A

Asch (1956) Some participants said they didn’t want to look silly or be rejected by the rest of the group This is referred to as normative social influence They wanted to “fit in” with the others Some participants said it was because they thought the others must have had better eyesight or be better informed in some way This is referred to as informational social influence They were basically utilizing others as a source of information

Asch’s conclusions…conditions that strengthen conformity The following were influential insofar as conformity was concerned... Group size Incompetent and insecure individuals Group’s status and attractiveness

Group size As the number of people increases so does conformity… Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to 15 confederates in his many studies Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the amount of additional influence was negligible

Incompetent and insecure individuals When one is made to feel incompetent or insecure conformity is likely

Group’s status and attractiveness Kind of goes without saying…if its a group you want to be a part of – you will likely conform to its opinions

Asch’s conclusions…conditions that weaken conformity Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect” Independence

Presence of an ally The presence of a true partner, who agreed with the subject, reduced conformity by 80% When we have an ally, we can diffuse the pressure because we are not the only one breaking the norm Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minority Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conform

Independence Some people care more about standing up for their rights than being disliked In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone dissenter resisted the pressure to conform

Asch (1956) Bottom-line Conclusion: People faced with strong group consensus sometimes go along even though they think the others may be wrong And these are strangers…what if they were member’s of your own circle of friends?

Difference between Asch & Sherif studies Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other for guidance Asch: Participants often found themselves in an awkward position It was obvious that group was wrong

Difference between Asch & Sherif studies Sherif (moving light) Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer Reasonable to consider other’s views Participants later adopted social norms Conformity leads to internalization Asch (parallel lines) Participants knew there was a correct answer Conformity does not lead to internalization

Types of Conformity Private Conformity: Public Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt behavior only

Types of Conformity

19% agreed with statement in private CRUTCHFIELD (1955) Studies of attitude “Free speech being a privilege rather than a right, it is proper for a society to suspend free speech when it feels threatened” 19% agreed with statement in private 58% agreed under pressure of group influence

“I doubt whether I would make a good leader” CRUTCHFIELD (1955) Statement presented to Army leaders: “I doubt whether I would make a good leader” None agreed with statement in private 37% agreed under group pressure BUT When Ss were presented with judgements again in private most reverted to their pre-group answers No permanent attitude change as result of experiment

DEL MAR, California (March 26, 1997) 39 cult members were found dead in a hilltop mansion They apparently died in a carefully orchestrated suicide that involved sedatives, vodka and plastic bags possibly used to suffocate

Together forever??? In 1994, members began to talk more openly about leaving Earth for what they called "The Kingdom Level Above Human," which they said was a "real, physical" place Pictured to the right is their leader, Marshall Applewhite

He got people to conform to his beliefs… “Hale-Bopp's (comet) approach is the ‘marker’ we've been waiting for -- the time for the arrival of the spacecraft from the Level Above Human to take us home to ‘Their World’ -- in the literal Heavens” Our 22 years of classroom here on planet Earth is finally coming to conclusion -- "graduation" from the Human Evolutionary Level They believed that a spaceship was following the comet and they were happily prepared to leave They committed the mass suicide so that their spirits could board the ship

Other less extreme examples of conformity… TV comedies that use canned laughter – research shows that it works Bartenders and street musicians will often place money in their tip jars or hats – again research shows that this works