CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE Like fish swimming in schools and birds flying in flocks, humans are socially influenced by the group, highly suggestible, and natural mimics → conformity occurs when we adjust our behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard

CONFORMITY Solomon Asch conducted the classic experiments on conformity during the 1950s using male college undergraduates → after observing multiple co-subjects (actually accomplices of the experiment) give obviously wrong answers, more than one-third of the subjects ‘conformed’ by also giving the wrong answer

CONFORMITY Later research found the following determinants making conformity more likely: Groups are at least three people Groups are unanimous (one dissenter breaks the spell) Subjects are made to feel incompetent/insecure and admire the group’s status Subjects know they are being observed

CONFORMITY Two separate processes have been identified to explain why we conform: 1) Normative social influence → results from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval (sensitivity to social norms) 2) Informational social influence → results from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality (the desire to be accurate)

OBEDIENCE The classic study on obedience was done in the 1960s by Stanley Milgram (student of Asch) who wanted to determine to what extent people would be willing to follow orders → conducted at Yale University, Milgram recruited participants to be either the ‘teacher’ or the ‘student’…though it was rigged that they would be the teacher

OBEDIENCE → as the ‘teacher’ they were to deliver a series of escalating ‘shocks’ to the ‘student’ (an accomplice) whenever he made a mistake

OBEDIENCE → as the ‘voltage’ increased, the ‘student’ began to cry in agony and bang the wall, but the ‘experimenter’ instructed the ‘teacher’ to continue

OBEDIENCE → the majority (26) of the (40) ‘teachers’ continued ‘shocking’ the ‘students’ through the entire series of shocks, showing considerable distress while doing so

OBEDIENCE Milgram concluded that almost anybody can be coerced into inflicting harm on others under the right circumstances → situational factors that decreased obedience in follow-up trials included, 1) separating the study from the prestige of Yale, 2) limiting the perceived authority of the experimenter, 3) involving a role model/supporter for defiance

OBEDIENCE Beyond questioning the generalizability (does it apply to real-world situations?) of his study, Milgram’s critics pointed out the ethical issues involved → Milgram argued that despite the stress and deception, no subjects showed regret or long-term emotional damage

OBEDIENCE → an updated version (2009) of the study by Jerry Burger modified it for modern ethical standards, but came up with similar results

OBEDIENCE The conformity and obedience rates found in Asch’ and Milgram’s studies, respectively have not been found to be unique to the U.S. → in particular, and predictably, conformity rates have been found to be higher in collectivist countries