1. Social Influence – Module 44 Apr 10-13, 2009 Class # 31-32
INTRO PSYCH
Social Influence – Module 44
Apr 10-13, 2009
Class # 31-32

2. Deindividuation Theory
Deindividuation theory is a social psychological account of the individual in the crowd
Deindividuation is a psychological state of decreased self-evaluation, causing anti-normative and disinhibited behavior

3. Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo (1973)
One of the all-time great sociology/psychology experiments
Illustrates deindividuation
As we watch this short video clip, think of the person vs. situation debate
Also, imagine yourself as participants in this ethically troublesome experiment

4. Stanford Prison Experiment
Thirty years ago, a group of young men were rounded up by Palo Alto police and dropped off at a new jail -- in the Stanford Psychology Department

5. These were just like real arrests…
On a quiet Sunday morning... each was arrested for violation of Penal Codes 211, Armed Robbery or Burglary, a 459 PC
Some arrested still vividly remember the shock of having neighbors come out to watch the commotion as TV cameras recorded the hand-cuffing for the “nightly news”

6. Treated poorly from the start…
Strip searched, sprayed for lice and locked up with chains around their ankles, the "prisoners" were part of an experiment to test people's reactions to power dynamics in social situations

7. Don’t mess with us…
Other college student volunteers -- the "guards" -- were given authority to dictate 24-hour-a-day rules

8. Soon, they were humiliating the prisoners…

9. And it got worse and worse…

10. It didn’t take long…
Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage…he was released

11. You want us to do what???
Upon hearing of a rumored break-out Zimbardo panicked…
Instead of sitting back and observing what was to occur next, like the good experimental psychologist that he was…
He went back to the Palo Alto Police Department and asked the sergeant if “we could have our prisoners transferred to your jail for at least one night”
Zimbardo had also totally fallen into his role

12. Parole Board
During the parole hearings they also witnessed an unexpected metamorphosis of the prison consultant as he adopted the role of head of the Parole Board
He literally became the most hated authoritarian official imaginable, so much so that when the experiment was over he felt sick at who he had become…
He acted no different than his own tormentor who had previously rejected his annual parole requests for 16 years when he was a prisoner

13. “I think it is terrible what you are doing to those boys”
Christina Maslach was a recent PhD graduate at Stanford and in a romantic relationship with Zimbardo
She almost got physically ill when seeing the cruelty

14. Her reactions convinced Zimbardo it was time to call it off…
Maslach realized that the experiment was becoming very ugly…she couldn’t believe some of the transformations…
Upon her arrival, she had a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man waiting to start his guard shift
Other researchers had told her there was a particularly sadistic guard, whom both prisoners and other guards had nicknamed John Wayne

15. Which one is “John Wayne”?
Later, when she looked at the monitor of the prison yard again, she asked someone to point out John Wayne and was shocked to discover it was the young man she had talked with earlier…

16. Jekyll and Hyde experience
He was talking in a different accent ­ a Southern accent, which she hadn't recalled at all
He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners
“It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde”

17. Interesting note…
Christina Maslach was one of about 50 visitors who had arrived after the experiment had began…
She was the only one who complained about it
The only one who suggested that it be stopped

18. Full debriefing…
Zimbardo: On the last day, we held a series of encounter sessions, first with all the guards, then with all the prisoners (including those who had been released earlier), and finally with the guards, prisoners, and staff together. We did this in order to get everyone's feelings out in the open…

19. Who am I ?
None of the guards left the experiment – most seemed to enjoy it
The prisoners were abused – some sobbed their way out
What would you have done differently had you been a guard? A prisoner?

20. Crowds and Deindividuation: The Halloween Studies
Dierner et al. (1976)
Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely to steal extra candy than individual kids, unless they were individuated by being asked their names
Beaman et al. (1979)
Anonymous children in Halloween costumes stole more from a candy jar than kids asked their first names
Even less likely to steal if a mirror was put behind the candy bowl

21. Back to the real world… Mullen (1986)
Bigger the mob, the greater the atrocities

22. Zimbardo (1970): The abandoned car study
Palo Alto, California vs. NYC

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

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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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”

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

32. 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

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

34. But when the participant was surrounded by confederates…
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
After a round or two of hearing what appeared to be obvious wrong answers the real participant began to squirm and squint (see next slide)

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

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

42. 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

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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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?

47. 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

48. 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

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

50. Types of Conformity

51. Active and Public Commitments
Students in one experiment were asked to judge lines in an Asch-type experiment
Before hearing group members make erroneous judgments:
Some privately wrote down their judgments (Active Commitment Only)
Others wrote their judgments and gave them to the experimenter (Active plus Public Commitment)

52. Public Commitments
Of those who made NO COMMITMENT to their original decisions, only about half stuck with them in the face of group pressure
100%
80%
60%
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
40%
20% 0%
Neither Active nor public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

53. Public Commitments
Making a PRIVATE COMMITMENT increased the likelihood of sticking to the original correct judgment
100%
80%
60%
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
40%
20% 0%
Neither Active nor public
Active Only
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

54. Public Commitments
Making the commitment PUBLIC further increased the likelihood of resisting group pressure
100%
80%
60%
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
40%
20% 0%
Neither Active nor public
Active Only
Active Plus Public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

55. Obedience Milgram (1963) Obedience experiments
The behavior change that comes in response to a demand from an authority figure

56. Obedience
Most authority figures have been given their authority by society
We are just told to follow what they tell you to do
Every person at some time in their life has followed a superior without questioning why they are doing what they are doing
For example we never question why we take tests in school
We just take them because we are told to do so

57. Milgram’s questionnaire…
Everyone answering Milgram's questionnaire said they would refuse to punish the learner
They also believed that other people would disobey
Most people reject unnecessary pain and therefore would not follow brutal orders
The responses of college students, psychiatrists, and middle-class adults all predicted that only 1% or 2% of the general population would obey such orders fully, administering the highest shock available

58. Milgram Obedience Experiments
Psychiatrists guessed that 1 in 1000 would go clear to 450 volts (only “true psychopaths”)
But, in the original study, 26/40 went all the way

59. Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment
Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.

60. What would you have done?
Don’t commit the Fundamental Attribution Error!

61. Factors Affecting Obedience in original study
Prestige and status of authority figure
Supported by prestigious institution
Person giving orders was close at hand
Milgram was right there
Victims were depersonalized
Out of sight
Presence of others who disobey
Here, no role models who disobeyed

62. In replications… Legitimacy of Authority Proximity of Authority Figure
When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%
Proximity of Authority Figure
When Milgram gave commands by telephone, compliance dropped to 21%
Emotional Distance
When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to 40%
When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance fell to 30%
Group Influence
When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only 10% of real subjects fully complied with the orders

63. Factors That Influence Obedience
Based on information in Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram (c) Reprinted with permission..

64. Explanations for Obedience
Cognitive Dissonance
Behavior (shocking learner) conflicted with belief (learner is a decent person)
So solution is to alter belief: “He’s such an idiot he deserves to get shocked”
The experimental procedure itself
Participants were led to feel relieved of personal responsibility for the victim’s welfare
Gradual escalation of shocks was used
Which technique already discussed did Milgram utilize?

65. Milgram’s Experiments
Relevance of Milgram’s research to today’s society…
Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s obedience experiments…
Milgram’s participants were tormented by experience
Well, Milgram reported that 84 percent of subjects later said they were glad to have participated

66. The Learner’s Protests

67. The Prods Used in Milgram’s Experiment
“Please continue”
“The experiment requires that you continue”
“It is absolutely essential that you continue”
“You have no other choice; you must go on”

68. The Obedient Participant
No gender differences observed in level of obedience
Milgram’s basic findings have been replicated in several different countries and among different age groups

69. Social Facilitation
If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing (improve performance on simple tasks but interfere with performance on complex tasks)

70. Triplett (1898)
Was one of the first scientists to ask the question "What happens when individuals join together with other individuals?"
Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in races than they did when they were paced by motor-driven cycles or when they were timed riding the course alone

71. Zajonc (1965)
Proposed that the mere presence of others increases arousal which in turn affects our performance

72. Zajonc (1969) Cockroach study
Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one end of the tube…
To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of the tube…
IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches
DV: Speed of escape
Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when other cockroaches were present

73. Criticisms of Zajonc
Support for this model was eroded when later studies showed that the type of audience was important e.g. home or away fans
The exact mechanism behind the social facilitation has yet to be determined but all of the following have been proposed: heightened self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-presentation concern, self-monitoring and self-attention

74. Michaels et al. (1982)
Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average ability…
Then a group of confederates came and stood by their table as they played
The above average players' shot accuracy improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate

75. Social Loafing
If performance cannot be individually evaluated, the presence of others will lead to a diminished effort on the part each person

76. Latane et al. (1979)
IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in groups of 2, 4, or 6 people
DV: amount of noise made by each participant
Results:
As the size of the group, individual sound decreased

77. Why the lack of effort?
They feel less accountable and therefore worry less about what others think
They view their contribution as dispensable
Often feel they can get away with “free-riding”
Plain and simple reality?
People are motivated by rewards…if they don’t feel they’ll get any credit then they probably won’t bust their…

78. Group Polarization
The exaggeration through group discussion on initial tendencies in the thinking of group members
For example:
Low prejudice groups can become less prejudiced and high prejudiced groups can become more prejudiced

79. Groupthink
Group decision-making that is not optimal, sometimes disastrous, because the group’s primary goal is consensus instead of accuracy
Example:
U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger explosion

80. Credits
Some pictures and slides in this presentation prepared by: