1. LECTURE 9 Conformity (and Group Dynamics) 1)Administration 2)Chameleon Effect 3)Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study 4)Asche’s Conformity Studies 5)Milgram’s Obedience Studies 6)Break 7)Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study 8)Video on Conformity 9)Resisting Conformity 10)Next Classes

2. 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.

3. 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.

5. Chameleon Effect Chartrand & Bargh, 1999

7. Chameleon Effect Does this behaviour occur automatically? Consciously? Why do we mimic others?

8. Social Influence Informational Social Influence vs. Normative Social Influence

9. 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.

10. Autokinetic Study (Sherif, 1936)

11. When do we conform to informational social influence? 1.When the situation is ambiguous – Fire alarms 2.When there is a crisis 3.When others are experts

12. 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.

13. Social Pressure Study (Asch, 1951) 123

16. *** 76% of the participants conformed at least once giving an answer they knew to be wrong.

17. 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.

18. Types of Conformity Conformity: A change in behaviour or beliefs due to the real or imagined influence of other people. However, we also conform because we want others to like/respect us (normative influence). 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.

19. 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.

20. Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study Makes noise “I want to quit!” “This hurts!” “Ouwwww, this really hurts!” Stops responding

21. 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”)

22. Milgram’s (1963) Obedience Study Learner says he wants to stop.

23. Obedience Across Studies Percentage fully obedient * Experimental Version

24. 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.

25. 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 Role Shared expectations by group members about how particular people in the group ought to behave.

26. Stanford Prison Study Zimbardo (1971) 1)Zimbardo randomly assigned university students to role play either guards or prisoners. 2)Guards were given uniforms, whistles, and clubs and were told to enforce the rules. 3)Prisoners were given uniforms, numbers rather than names, and locked in cells. What do you think happened?

27. Stanford Prison Study Zimbardo (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.

28. Video on Milgram Studies and Stanford Prison Study

29. 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

30. 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.

31. 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)

32. 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 outfits or – Anti-social cues – asked to put on KKK outfit – Deindividuation independent variable: – Told no way to identify who gave what shocks and no name tags or – Told other group members could see their selection of shock levels and wore name tags

33. Deindividuation

34. 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

35. Flexible Correction Model (Wegener & Petty, 1997) Example of flexible correction processes Please 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? or But … 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?

36. 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 Variable Judgment: 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 Satisfaction Schwarz & Clore, 1983

37. (Assimilation Effect)(Corrected Effect) Life Satisfaction

38. 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 Variable Judgment: 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

39. (Contrast Effect)(Corrected Effect) Context and Evaluations of Kansas Petty & Wegner, 1993 Attitude toward Kansas Vacation

40. 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

41. 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkFa2lSNAGc / Check out: Moral Courage in Combat: The My Lai Story – Hugh Thompson

42. Summary Chameleon Effect Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study Asche’s Conformity Studies Milgram’s Obedience Studies Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study Resisting Conformity

43. Next Classes Class 10: Thursday, March 10 th Second In-Class Exam Chapters 6, persuasion, 7, and 8 Class 11: Thursday, March 17 th - Francine Altruism and Aggression Reading material: Chapter 10: Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help? pp. 310-337. Chapter 11: Aggression: Why We Hurt Other People, pp. 338-371.