Page 1 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, UNIT 3: COFORMITY, What Is Conformity?, Conformity —changing one’s behavior or belief as a result of group pressure.A change in, behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined group pressure., Two forms., Compliance is outwardly going along with the group while inwardly disagreeing. Conformity, that involves publicly acting in accord with an implied or explicit request while, privately disagreeing, Obedience: We comply primarily to reap a reward or avoid a punishment. If our compliance, is to an explicit command, we call it obedience., Acceptance is believing as well as acting in accord with social pressure. Sometimes we, genuinely believe in what the group has persuaded us to do. We may join millions of, others in exercising because we all have been told that exercise is healthy and we, accept that as true. This sincere, inward conformity is called acceptance. Classic, , Conformity and Obedience Studies, Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation, Muzafer Sherif conducted a classic study on conformity in 1936. Sherif put subjects in, a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved., Psychologists had previously discovered that a small, unmoving light in a dark room often, appeared to be moving. This was labeled the autokinetic effect., The autokinetic effect is an illusion because the light does not actually move. However,, people almost always believe that it does., Realizing that an experience that is completely "in people's heads" might be readily, influenced by suggestion, Sherif decided to study how people were influenced by other people's, opinions, in their perception of the autokinetic effect., First Sherif studied how subjects reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were in a, room by themselves. He found that they soon established their own individual norms for the, judgment—usually 2 to 6 inches. In other words, when given many opportunities (trials) to, judge the movement of the light, they settled on a distance of 2-6 inches and became consistent, in making this judgment from trial to trial., , 1

Page 2 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or, 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise., People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches soon made smaller judgments like 4 inches., Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4, inches. People changed to more resemble the others in the group., Sherif's subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects, directly, "Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments,", most denied it. However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed, to the group judgment they recently made. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of, 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving, about 4 inches. These subjects had been changed by the group experience, whether they, realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms., Group norms are agreed-upon standards of behaviour. Sherif's experiment showed, group norms are established through interaction of individuals and the leveling-off of extreme, opinions. The result is a consensus agreement that tends to be a compromise...even if it is, wrong., Asch’s Studies of Group Pressure, Solomon Asch (1951) conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social, pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform., Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 50 male students from, Swarthmore College in the USA participated in a ‘vision test.’ Using a line judgment task,, Asch put a naive participant in a room with seven partners., The partners had agreed in advance what their responses would be when presented with, the line task. The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven, participants were also real participants like themselves., , 2

Page 3 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was most, like the target line. The answer was always obvious. The real participant sat at the end of the, row and gave his or her answer last., , There were 18 trials in total, and the partners gave the wrong answer on 12 trails (called the, critical trials). Asch was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority, view. Asch's experiment also had a control condition where there were no partners, only a "real, participant.", Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority view., On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this situation went, along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials., Over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25%, of participant never conformed. In the control group, with no pressure to conform to, confederates, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer., Milgram’s Obedience Experiments, One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley, Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the, conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience., Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an, instruction if it involved harming another person., Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics:, deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from, unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up., At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, who, was a confederate (partner) of the experimenter (Milgram)., They determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed and the, confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab, coat, played by an actor (not Milgram)., Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric, chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator., , 3

Page 4 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has, learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and, asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices., The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a, mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator, marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock)., The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher, gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter, was to give a series of orders to ensure they continued., Prod 1: Please continue., Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue., Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue., Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue., 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All, the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out, 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected, obedience (DV), Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped, before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became, extremely agitated, distraught, and angry at the experimenter, but they continued to follow, orders all the way to the end., Due to concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants,, everyone was debriefed at the end of the experiment. The researchers explained the procedures, and the use of deception., However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still, confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and, 4

Page 5 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , found that 84 percent were glad to have participated while only 1 percent regretted their, involvement., The Moral Questions Milgram Raised, While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects, in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further, experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that, Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments., Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers, dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the, experimenter's orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks., , What Breeds Obedience?, Four factors that determined obedience were:, 1.The victim’s emotional distance, Milgram’s participants acted with greatest obedience and least com - passion when the, “learners” could not be seen (and could not see them). When the victim was re - mote, and the “teachers” heard no complaints, nearly all obeyed calmly to the end., When the learner was in the same room, “only” 40 percent obeyed to 450 volts., In everyday life, too, it is easiest to abuse someone who is distant or depersonalized., 2. The authority’s closeness and legitimacy,, The physical presence of the experimenter also affected obedience. When the one, making the command is physically close, compliance increases. When Milgram’s, experimenter gave the commands by telephone, full obedience dropped to 21 percent, (although many lied and said they were obeying). Other studies confirm that when the, one making the command is physically close, compliance increases., 3. Institutional Authority, If the prestige of the authority is that important, In post experimental interviews, many, participants said that had it not been for Yale’s reputation, they would not have obeyed., In everyday life, too, authorities backed by institutions wield social power., 4. The liberating effects of group influence, Perhaps you can recall a time you felt justifiably angry at an unfair teacher but you, hesitated to object. Then one or two other students spoke up about the unfair practices,, and you followed their example, which had a liberating effect., , 5

Page 6 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , What Predicts Conformity?, 1. Group size:, 3 to 5 people will elicit more conformity than just 1 or 2 .Groups greater in size than 5, yields diminishing returns In a field experiment, Milgram and his colleagues (1969), had 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, or 15 people pause on a busy New York City sidewalk and look up., The percentage of passers-by who also looked up increased as the number looking up, increased from 1 to 5 persons., 2. Unanimity :, When someone giving, correct answers punctures the group’s unanimity,, decreases its social power Any puncturing of unanimity makes it easier to defy the, group.Even if one other person gives an incorrect response that is different from the, error the others are making conformity drops sharply., 3. Cohesion, “We feeling”; extent to which members of a group are bound together, such as by, attraction for one another. The more cohesive a group is, the more power it gains over, its members, 4. Status :, The higher the status of those modelling the behaviour or belief, the greater likelihood, of conformity. Milgram found lower status types obeyed orders more readily., Conversely, higher status people, or those who feel they are more competent at the task, in question, are more likely to resist group pressure., 5. Public Response:, People conform more when they must respond in front of others rather than writing, their answers privately The greater the publicity and surveillance associated with the, behavior, the greater the conformity. Where behavior is difficult to monitor, the, effectiveness of social sanctions is weakened. In public settings, we are likely to, experience pressures for compliance although private acceptance may be absent., 6. Prior Commitment:, Once people have given an answer, they are much more likely to stick with it than when, they hear others first. Those who state own opinions first are much less open to, influence. Don't want to appear wishy-washy., , 6

Page 7 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , Why Conform?, What two forms of social influence explain why people will conform to others?, 1. Normative influence, Conformity based on a person’s desire to fulfil others’ expectations, often to gain, acceptance. A desire to avoid punishments (such as going along with the rules in class, even though you don't agree with them) and gain rewards (such as behaving in a certain, way in order to get people to like you)., o Yielding to group pressure because a person wants to fit in with the group. E.g., Asch Line Study., o Conforming because the person is scared of being rejected by the group., o This type of conformity usually involves compliance – where a person publicly, accepts the views of a group but privately rejects them., 2. Informational influence, Conformity occurring when people accept evidence about reality provided by other, people., o This usually occurs when a person lacks knowledge and looks to the group for, guidance., o Or when a person is in an ambiguous (i.e. unclear) situation and socially, compares their behavior with the group. E.g. Sherif's Study., o This type of conformity usually involves internalization – where a person, accepts the views of the groups and adopts them as an individual., , Who Conforms?, 1. Personality:, Personality scores are poor predictors of specific acts of conformity but better, predictors of average conformity. Trait effects are strongest in “weak” situations, where social forces do not overwhelm individual differences., 2. Culture:, Different cultures socialize people to be more or less socially responsive, 3. Social Roles:, o Social roles involve a certain degree of conformity, and conforming to \, expectations is an important task when stepping into a new social role., o Social roles allow some freedom of interpretation to those who act theme out,, but some aspects of any role must be performed., o Roles have powerful effects. As you internalize the role, self-consciousness, subsided. What felt awkward now feels genuine., 7

Page 8 :
Mr.Patel Azhar,Maulana Azad college,Aurangabad, , How can we Resist Social Pressure to conform?, 1. Reactance:, o Individuals value their sense of freedom and self-efficacy., o A motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom. Reactance arises when, someone threatens our freedom of actions., o The theory of psychological reactance– that people act to protect their sense of, freedom– is supported by experiments showing that attempts to restrict a, person’s freedom often produce an anti-conformity “boomerang effect”., 2. Asserting Uniqueness:, o Individual who have the highest “need for uniqueness” tend to be the least, responsive to majority influence., o We act in ways that preserve our sense of individuality, o In a group, we are most conscious of how we differ from others, , 8