1 / 37

Compliance and Conformity

This summary provides key findings from Milgram's obedience experiments, including the high rates of obedience, the impact of personalization, gender differences, and the relevance to historical events like the Holocaust. It also discusses conformity, normative social influence, and strategies for resisting normative social influence.

knutson
Download Presentation

Compliance and Conformity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Compliance and Conformity

  2. Summary of Milgram Studies % Obeying • Teacher does not deliver shock, but helped out. 93% • Victim pounds on wall then becomes silent 65% • Victim heard protesting (movie version) 50% • Victim in same room 40% • Teacher has to put victim's hand on shock plate 30% • Victim says at outset that he will do study only if he is let out when he wants to be 40% • Study done in Bridgeport, CT 48% • Experimenter in remote location 19% • Teacher told to select the level of shock (experimenter legitimizes all levels) 3%

  3. Additional Findings • If the experimenter was not a scientist 20% • Two other confederates that refuse 10% • 2 experimenters that disagree 0% 4 Prods “Continue please.” “The experiment requires that you continue” “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” “You have no other choice teacher.”

  4. Milgram’s 37 • Represents the ____number____of the naïve subjects that helped out a confederate who actually administered the shocks. • __37__out of _40_ people ( 93%) continued to the end, the __highest_____obedience rate in any of Milgram’s studies. • Experiment 18 “A peer administers shocks” in Milgram’s book Obedience to authority: An experimental view (pp. 121-122).

  5. Personalizing the victim • Markedly reduces obedience

  6. Gender • Are men or women more obedient in Milgram’s paradigm?

  7. Other replications Hofling et al. (1966) • Unknown doctor called nurses and asked them to administer 20 milligrams of the drug "Astroten" to a patient on the ward. Violated hospital policy. • __21__/22 (_95_%) of the nurses ___administered_______the drug, • ____Stopped__________and debriefed by one of the researchers.

  8. How well can people predict their own obedience? • The researchers told a group of nurses and nursing students about the study and asked them how they would react. • Nearly all said they ___would not_____ administer the medication as ordered.

  9. Another replication Sheridan & King (1972) • Replicated Milgram exactly, except that (a) participants were male & female college students, (b) victim was a "cute, fluffy, puppy," and (c) the shocks were real. • Participants instructed to deliver a shock each time the puppy failed to learn a discrimination task, which was actually unsolvable • Results: 50% of males subjects and 100% of female subjects shocked the puppy

  10. Would Milgram find less obedience if he conducted his experiments today? • Thomas Blass • Examined Milgram studies and replications during a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985. Correlated year of publication and the amount of obedience. No significant correlation.

  11. Relevance of the FAE • How is the fundamental attribution error relevant to Milgram’s research?

  12. Historical insights • How might Milgram’s research offer insights into historical events such as the Holocaust and the My Lai massacre?

  13. Conformity • Conformity: A change in one’s behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people. • Unlike obedience, conformity does not require commands or coercion by an authority.

  14. Normative Social Influence* • Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies Asch (1951, 1956) tested whether people would conform in situations in which the group’s judgments were obviously incorrect. Participants in the Asch line study showed a high level of conformity, given how obvious it was that the group was wrong in its judgments.

  15. Normative Social Influence* • Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies

  16. Normative Social Influence* • Conformity and Social Approval: The Asch Line Judgment Studies • 76% conformed on at least one of the trials

  17. Asch studies of conformity • What was the role of… • Public versus private conformity? • Unanimity of the group? • Normative influence? (don’t want to look silly)

  18. Private vs. Public conformity • Private conformity: change of beliefs that occurs when a person privately accepts the position taken by others. • Public conformity: superficial change in overt behavior, without a corresponding change of opinion, produced by real or imagined group pressure. • Asch studies demonstrate PUBLIC conformity

  19. Normative social influence* • Normative influence: Conformity occurs when a person fears the negative consequences of appearing deviant. • If they write answers privately, conformity drops markedly.

  20. Unanimous group* • When the group’s position is unanimous, conformity is greater. • If one person dissents (an ally), conformity drops.

  21. Normative Social Influence • When Will People Conform to Normative Social Influence?* Asch’s research show that conformity does not increase much after group size reaches 4 or 5 other people.

  22. Normative Social Influence • Resisting Normative Social Influence The first step in resisting normative social influence is to become aware that we are doing it. The second step is to find an ally who thinks like we do.

  23. Normative Social Influence • Resisting Normative Social Influence Additionally, if you conform to group norms most of the time, you earn idiosyncracy credits that give you the right to deviate occasionally without serious consequences.

  24. Normative Social Influence • Minority Influence: When the Few Influence the Many Moscovici (1985) argues that a minority can affect change in the majority. The key to this is consistency over time and consistent unanimity among members of the minority.

  25. Obedience and Conformity in Everyday Life • Candid Camera Video (For each episode, think about why people might be conforming and what kinds of social influence strategies might be operating.) • Face the Rear: Why are people conforming? • Influence tactics for sharing ice cream: What kinds of social influence strategies are being used? • Picketing against everything with nothing: • Don’t walk on the black squares: • Don’t Eat Light: • Delaware closed today:

  26. Who is most likely to conform? • Adolescents • Women are slightly more likely than men, but the difference is very small and depends on the specific type of situation. • Cultures valuing interpersonal harmony (e.g., some cultures in Asia, Africa, and South America) • People with low self-esteem are more likely to conform than those with high self-esteem.

  27. Compliance • Mindlessness/Automatic Pilot • Langer & colleagues (1978): • IV: How phrased request: • Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the xerox machine? (No reason) (60%) • ....because I’m in a rush. (real reason) (94%) • ...because I have to make some copies (illusion of a reason) (93%) • DV: Percent agreeing to request

  28. Conformity • Foot-in-the-door effect: Small request. Large request • Lowball procedure: commitment • Door-in-the-face effect: Deny large to get small.

More Related