Conformity and Obedience in Social Psychology
Conformity and Obedience
CONFORMITY
“
The tendency to change our perceptions,
opinions, or behaviour in ways that are
consistent with group norms”
(Brehm, Kassin
& Fein, 1999, p 213)
Factors relating to conformity
Informational influence
•
when you conform because you believe that
others are correct in their judgments. Sherif's
(1936) study illustrates this concept.
Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect
Experiment
•
Aim
: Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of
demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are
put in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation.
•
Method
: Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He
used the autokinetic effect – this is where a small spot of light
(projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even
though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion).
•
It was discovered that when participants were individually tested
their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g.
from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups
of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by
putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement
when alone was very similar, and one person whose estimate was
very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far
they thought the light had moved.
•
Results
: Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the
movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The
person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other
two in the group conformed to the view of the other two.
•
Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to
conform. Rather than make individual judgments they tend to come to a
group agreement.
•
Conclusion
: The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such
as the autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more /
better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group norm). They want to do the
right thing but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others
can provide this information. This is known as informational conformity.
•
Write a brief summary of Sherif’s experiment.
Normative influence
•
when you conform because you fear the
possible negative social consequences of not
going along. Asch's (1951) study illustrates this
concept.
Size of group
•
conformity tends to increase as the size of the
group increases, however, there is little
change in conformity once the group size
reaches 4-5.
Awareness of norms
•
the more aware someone is of the prevailing
norm, the more likely one is to conform.
•
Why do you think this is??
Presence of an ally
•
Asch (1951) found that even the presence of
just one confederate that goes against the
majority choice can reduce conformity as
much as 80%.
Age differences
•
there is some evidence that age may play a
factor. For example, during adolescence there
is an increased tendency to "conform" to
peers.
Gender differences
•
there is some indication that there are some
gender differences but the findings are not
clearly established yet.
Cultural influences
•
many instances of cultural influences leading
to differences in conformity.
Factors relating to Obedience
OBEDIENCE
•
Behavior change produced by the commands
of authority
(Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 1999, p
232)
KEY STUDIES
•
Bickman (1974)
- had research assistants "order" people passing by on the
street to do something. When they wore security guards uniforms, almost
9 out of 10 people obeyed.
•
Milgram (1963
) - the classic study in this area. A participant was paired
with a confederate in a study of "the effects of punishment on learning."
The participant served as the "teacher" and the confederate was the
"learner." The teacher was to provide an progressive level of shock
(though no shock was actually given) to the learner every time the learner
gave an incorrect response. The question was how strong of a shock would
the "teacher" provide. A group of psychiatrists estimated that only 1 % of
the population would provide the maximum level of shock (450 volts) and
most predicted that most participants would stop around 135 volts.
Overall 65 % of the participants provided the maximum "shock" of 450
volts despite the pleas of the "learner". Though the original study
consisted of all men, the study has produced similar findings with women
and in other countries.
Authority figure
•
the prestige of the authority figure and the
physical presence of the figure influence the
degree of obedience.
•
The higher the perceived prestige, the more
the confomity and the physical presence of
the authority figure increases the level of
obedience.
•
However, Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves &
Pierce (1966) demonstrated that powerful authority
figures (in this case a physician) can produce high levels
of obedience without being physically present.
•
The authors studied how nurses would respond to a
phone request from a physician to administer an
uncommon drug at a high dosage with the potential for
harm to the patient.
•
They found that 21 of 22 nurses were willing to
complete these phone orders (though the nurses were
stopped from actually administering the drug).
Proximity of victim
•
evidence indicates a person is more likely to
obey an order that may produce harm if that
person is physically separated from the potential
victim.
•
Milgram observed a drop to 40% full obedience
when he placed both the participant and
confederate in the same room and had a drop to
30% full obedience when the participant had to
physically place the confederates hand on a metal
shock plate.
Personal responsibility
•
In Milgram's study the experimenter assumed
the responsibility for any harm that could
have occurred.
•
When a person has to assume personal
responsibility for any harm that can come
from obedience, the level of obedience tends
to drop.
Escalation of harm
•
Milgram's study involved a gradual escalation
of potential harm to the confederate as the
"teacher" increased the levels of shock.
•
The evidence suggests that situations that led
to gradual escalation of harm tend to produce
more conformity, that is, once a person starts
the process it becomes more difficult to not
obey.
•
Can you think of any examples that
demonstrate both concepts of conformity and
obedience?
Fundamental Attribution Error
•
people’s tendency to place undue emphasis
on internal characteristics to explain someone
else’s behaviour in a given situation. It helps
us to separate ourselves from the idea that
anyone (including ourselves) is capable of any
behaviours. Eg. Ted Bundy must have a genetic
disposition to psychopathy and that is why he
is able to kill people with no remorse.
Conformity and obedience are key concepts in social psychology. Conformity involves changing perceptions or behavior to fit group norms, influenced by factors like informational and normative influences. Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Experiment demonstrated how individuals conform in ambiguous situations by looking to group members for guidance. Normative influence, seen in Asch's study, highlights conformity due to fear of social consequences. These studies shed light on how group dynamics impact individual behavior.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CONFORMITY The tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behaviour in ways that are consistent with group norms (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 1999, p 213)
Informational influence when you conform because you believe that others are correct in their judgments. Sherif's (1936) study illustrates this concept.
Sherif (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment Aim: Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment with the aim of demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation. Method : Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect this is where a small spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it is still (i.e. it is a visual illusion). It was discovered that when participants were individually tested their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably (e.g. from 20cm to 80cm). The participants were then tested in groups of three. Sherif manipulated the composition of the group by putting together two people whose estimate of the light movement when alone was very similar, and one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved.
Results: Sherif found that over numerous estimates (trials) of the movement of light, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different to the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two. Sherif said that this showed that people would always tend to conform. Rather than make individual judgments they tend to come to a group agreement. Conclusion: The results show that when in an ambiguous situation (such as the autokinetic effect), a person will look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group norm). They want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information. This is known as informational conformity. Write a brief summary of Sherif s experiment.
Normative influence when you conform because you fear the possible negative social consequences of not going along. Asch's (1951) study illustrates this concept.
Size of group conformity tends to increase as the size of the group increases, however, there is little change in conformity once the group size reaches 4-5.
Awareness of norms the more aware someone is of the prevailing norm, the more likely one is to conform. Why do you think this is??
Presence of an ally Asch (1951) found that even the presence of just one confederate that goes against the majority choice can reduce conformity as much as 80%.
Age differences there is some evidence that age may play a factor. For example, during adolescence there is an increased tendency to "conform" to peers.
Gender differences there is some indication that there are some gender differences but the findings are not clearly established yet.
Cultural influences many instances of cultural influences leading to differences in conformity.
OBEDIENCE Behavior change produced by the commands of authority (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 1999, p 232)
KEY STUDIES Bickman (1974) - had research assistants "order" people passing by on the street to do something. When they wore security guards uniforms, almost 9 out of 10 people obeyed. Milgram (1963) - the classic study in this area. A participant was paired with a confederate in a study of "the effects of punishment on learning." The participant served as the "teacher" and the confederate was the "learner." The teacher was to provide an progressive level of shock (though no shock was actually given) to the learner every time the learner gave an incorrect response. The question was how strong of a shock would the "teacher" provide. A group of psychiatrists estimated that only 1 % of the population would provide the maximum level of shock (450 volts) and most predicted that most participants would stop around 135 volts. Overall 65 % of the participants provided the maximum "shock" of 450 volts despite the pleas of the "learner". Though the original study consisted of all men, the study has produced similar findings with women and in other countries.
Authority figure the prestige of the authority figure and the physical presence of the figure influence the degree of obedience. The higher the perceived prestige, the more the confomity and the physical presence of the authority figure increases the level of obedience.
However, Hofling, Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves & Pierce (1966) demonstrated that powerful authority figures (in this case a physician) can produce high levels of obedience without being physically present. The authors studied how nurses would respond to a phone request from a physician to administer an uncommon drug at a high dosage with the potential for harm to the patient. They found that 21 of 22 nurses were willing to complete these phone orders (though the nurses were stopped from actually administering the drug).
Proximity of victim evidence indicates a person is more likely to obey an order that may produce harm if that person is physically separated from the potential victim. Milgram observed a drop to 40% full obedience when he placed both the participant and confederate in the same room and had a drop to 30% full obedience when the participant had to physically place the confederates hand on a metal shock plate.
Personal responsibility In Milgram's study the experimenter assumed the responsibility for any harm that could have occurred. When a person has to assume personal responsibility for any harm that can come from obedience, the level of obedience tends to drop.
Escalation of harm Milgram's study involved a gradual escalation of potential harm to the confederate as the "teacher" increased the levels of shock. The evidence suggests that situations that led to gradual escalation of harm tend to produce more conformity, that is, once a person starts the process it becomes more difficult to not obey.
Can you think of any examples that demonstrate both concepts of conformity and obedience?
Fundamental Attribution Error people s tendency to place undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else s behaviour in a given situation. It helps us to separate ourselves from the idea that anyone (including ourselves) is capable of any behaviours. Eg. Ted Bundy must have a genetic disposition to psychopathy and that is why he is able to kill people with no remorse.
