The Dilemma: Huck's Moral Struggle to Help Jim Escape to Freedom

1. Class 18: Conformity and Compliance

2. Huckleberry Finn: The Performer, the Deceiver--the Self? Huck’s moral dilemma: Help Jim escape to freedom. What a dilemma? In Huck’s world, good people don’t help slaves escape. The stigma of an “ablishon’ist”. Huck morally mortified by Jim’s talk about freeing his wife and children. Huck decides to turn Jim in, feels relief. Huck encounters slavers; deceives them to save Jim Feels like a moral failure. “I knowed very well I done wrong, and I see it warn’t no use for me to try to learn right; a body that don’t get started right when he’s little aint got no show…” Social norms, desire to be good over-turned by “bad” impulse. What is the source of this impulse? Who authored it?

3. The Self: Is There a There There? Higg’s Boson Analogy

4. Conformity and the Individual: A Theme Embedded in a Time

5. Solomon Asch Swarthmore (1947-1966): Trained in Gestalt Psych under W. Kohler Rutgers (1966-1972): Inst. Cog. Studies U. Penn (1972-1979) Impression formation: Order effects and critical attributes Group A. intelligent-industrious-impulsive-critical-stubborn-envious Group B. envious-stubborn-critical-impulsive-industrious-intelligent Group A: intelligent-skillful-industrious-warm-determined-practical-cautious Group B: intelligent-skillful-industrious-cold-determined-practical-cautious

6. Asch Compliance Study Purpose: To demonstrate the force of social pressure on public judgment. Method: Ss are in study supposedly about spatial judgment One of 6-8 other subjects (in fact confeds) On certain trials, all other Ss give clearly wrong answers Critical outcome: will S answer in same way as others. Result: 76% comply at least once vs. 5% wrong answer in control group.

7. Results of Standard Conformity Study Number of Subjects Erroneous Responses

8. Character of Non-Conformers 1. Confident in own perception: Most vigorous dissenters. Emotionally-driven. 2. Withdrawn: Non-emotional, non-spontaneous; principled and deliberate. 3. Conflicted: Torn and anxious, but stuck to demands of task not demands of group.

9. Character of Conformers 1. Distorted perception: Actually see lines in distorted manner 2. Distorted judgment: Do not trust own perceptions 3. Distorted action: Don't want to defy the group

10. The Power of Numbers--To Harm and to Help How large a majority to produce conformity? Just three unanimous others Effect of one ally among bizarre majority? Drops from 74% to 10% What happens when ally joins majority? Conformity totally restored Late arrival of ally? Reduced conformity, but not totally reduced. Why? Compromise partner--wrong, but not as wrong as majority Reduced degree, but not number, of errors

11. Asch Study and Invisible Rope Asch Study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sno1TpCLj6A&feature=player_detailpage Invis ble R pe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMLd4ohAffQ&feature=fvwp&NR=1

12. Reasons for Compliance Situational Factors Group unanimity Group cohesiveness Opportunity to answer privately vs. publicly Dispositional (Person) Factors Desire to be liked (Normative Social Influence) Desire to behave adaptively

13. Non-Compliance and the Power of Minorities Reasons for non-compliance Need for individuation Desire to maintain personal control Desire to maintain personal integrity Power of Minorities Requires that minority: * be consistent * be non-rigid, non-dogmatic * hold views consistent with circumstances People comply with minority because: Minority motivated to think systematically Minority gets others to think systematically

14. Bystander Intervention Daniel Batson John Darley Bibb Latane Kitty Genovese

15. Intervention Study Design Ss told study involves personal disclosures. Anonymity important. All Ss in separate rooms. Only 1 naive S, rest are confeds. One confed fakes an epileptic seizure IV: How many other "subjects" witness distressed subject: 0, 1, or 4 DV: Does naive subject help? How long until subject helps?

16. Bystander Study Results

17. Reasons for Not Helping Non-helpers in state of conflict: Avoidance/Avoidance Why we dispositionalize: a. Provides reason, meaning for bad events b. Provide ego-buffer from thoughts of own possible failure to help.

18. From Jerusalem to Jericho Darley & Batson, 1973 Why doesn’t she help?

19. Design and Predictions Subjects: 40 seminary students Religiosity Measure: Extrinsic: Religion as means to ends Intrinsic: Religion as end in itself Religion as a quest Cover story: Study concerns vocational careers of seminarians Task: Ss give talk on either: Parable of Good Samaritan (help relevant) Vocational opportunities (help irrelevant) Time Pressure: Ample/Moderate/little time to get to audience Helping: Response to moaning man huddled in doorway

20. Helping Measure “Victim” rates S’s response: 0 = Failed to notice 1 = Noticed only 2 = Indirect help 3 = Offered help 4 = Insisted on helping Main effect for Time Pressure No Effect for Message Interaction is not significant NOTE: Small n may have obscured possible interaction Religiosity: Small but real effects; doctrinal types most ardent

21. Moderators of Bystander Apathy Situational ambiguity: In small groups, how often 1 person helps? 100% in non-ambig, 30% in ambig. Competence of other potential helpers Prior “social contract” with victim Radio at beach; Suitcase at “automat” “Contracted” more likely to NOTICE theft, and STOP theft Countering bystander apathy ____ Will one of you please help? ____ You, in the green shirt! Yes, you! Get help! X

22. Implicit Bystander Effects Garcia, Weaver, Moskowitz, & Darley, JPSP, 2002 Simply thinking about being in a group should induce bystander effects. Why? Primes: Being “deindividuated” Lowered sense of accountability Method Studies 1 and 3 1. Think about dinner with 1, 10, 30 friends 2. Filler task Study 1 DV: How much of your salary plan to donate to charity? Study 3 DV: How much time will you now give us on an experiment?

23. Studies 1 and 3 Results

24. Requesting Help: Pup Psychology