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

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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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”

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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

25. 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

26. 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

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

28. Types of Conformity

29. 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

30. “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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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