3 Experiments in Study of Conformity PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by AppreciativeOnyx3421
Tags
Summary
This document outlines three experiments on conformity and obedience to authority. It describes the Asch paradigm that investigates the influence of group pressure on individual judgment, the Milgram experiment assessing obedience to authority figures, and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment exploring the impact of situational factors on behavior. The experiments highlight the tension between individual independence and social influence.
Full Transcript
the experiment how power of conformity of groups s...
the experiment how power of conformity of groups s - to what extent does group pressure change people's opinions, attitudes & beliefs aim - what specific aspects of group were most important in influencing the invidual - size of majority / unanimity 0 male collenge students did a vision test -> 5 Asch showed pair of cards to 7 ppl. on one card : single test line, other cards : three comparison lines participants had to say out LOUD which comparison lines was equal to the test line procedure 1 participant is true participant, other 6 were Asch's confederates true participant seated near the end of table, next to last to state judgments confederates gave wrong answer on 12/18 trials. 2& trials: naive particpants conformed to 3 majority's unanimous view, even if correct ans was always obvious 74% naive participants : conformed at least once 26% naive participants : never conformed. some were confident in their judgments, but more often they felt tension & doubt findings small minority : had perceived line identified the majority as correct answer most conforming participants: thought their perception must be inaccurate -> so yielded to majority view some yielded, cuz could not bear to be in minority ore people are present. m but little change once group size > 4/5 people ask becomes more difficult t conformity increases when face uncertainty -> turn to others for info abt how to respond ther group members in higher social status o f urther experiments others more powerful, influential / - to determine which factors influenced how & knowledgeable -> more likely go along with when people conform? group people can respond privately conformity decreases when here is support from at least one group t member Asch experiment hows strong effect of group pressure on s individual's judgments & decisions -> shows that people often conform to group opinion, even when it contradicts their own senses xperiments on conformity & power of e majority influence: - reveal tension between independence key insights need for social acceptance. - highlight role of normative influence in social settings rovide critical understanding of group p dynamics, show how desire for conformity can lead to : distortion of an individual's perceptions, cognitions, behaviours in presence of unanimous group consensus limited sample and lack population validity, participants are all male American o informed consent from participants -> n participants dk what would be asked & not told they had a choice to quit experimenet reason: hard to study conformity, if par know nature of study they could display demand characteristics otential physical or/and psychological harm p - participants report temporary feelings of tension and stress ethical issues r eflects historical and cultural views of that time, instead of psychological phenomenon other researches repy to replicated this experiment Perrin & Spencer - cultural changes in recent times have reduces chance of conforming another experiment by same researches - similar levels of conformity with Asch's exp. -> mean if perceived costs of people not conforming are high, more likely to conform lab experiment - high level of control over extraneous variables. but allowed demand characteristics ros: high level of control over extraneous p variables, allowed demand characteristics lack of ecological validity - study does not reflect conformity in real life - people not cons: asked in daily life to state which line matches another here are conformity effects in an t unambiguous situation. group pressures to conform are much stronger than had been thought previously. conclusion eople may go along with others' views for diff p reasons, two main reasons: 1) normative influence - want to fit in with the group 2) informative influence - believe the group is more informed than they are investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey commands of an authority the experiment figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person est hypothesis "Germans are different" t based on atrocities committed during world war II. aim investigate how situational context can lead to ordinary people inflicting harm on others 1 ) level of shock administered by participants 2) proximity of authority figure - variations of physical proximity / remote instruction via independent variables telephone 3) presence/absence of social pressure from others. authority figure's attire varying from lab coat to everyday clothing participants were recruited by a deceptive newspaper advertisement which asked volunteers to take part in a study on " the role of punishment in learning". each was paid. each participant was told they would play role of teacher / learner. in fact, three roles - naive participant always as teacher, confederate as learner, experiementer learner-confederate mentioned he had a heart complaint. procedure learner was on electric chair in room next door to where teacher sat in front of a generator, teacher instructed by scientist in white lab coat to ask questions. teacher's role: every time learner made a mistake on the simple learning task, administer on electric shock to learner , increase 15 volts for each incorrect answer. shocks from 15 volts - 450 volts. level of shock administer increase -> confederate protest. 180- could not bear the pain anymore -> 300: screamed, complained abt heart trouble -> 315: refused to continue, did not respond to teacher's request to answer. unknown to participant, shocks were not real most participants protested & wanted to stop -> showed signs of extreme anxiety -> experimenter urged participant to keep going. experiment continued until par refused to continue / reached 450 volts - Milgram's prediction : 1-3% par administer max shock level - study: 65% par were convinced to administer max shock level, despite pleas of learners & findings supposed danger of proceeding - 80% par continued to administer shocks after 150 volts - par showed negative emotional responses to the experiment, even if continued to obey location - location at yale university had higher obedience rates, then at run-down offices -> experiment context impact participants' responses to authority bsent experimenter condition - show impact a of physical proximity on obedience experiements in 3 - authority physically present ->par more likely to obey study of conformity - authority not in close proximity -> obedience Milgram study rates dramatically decreased wo teacher condition - impact of participants t taking more indirect role in shocking - participants had opportunity to instruct an assistant, actually a confederate, to administer shocks to learner. - high rate of obedience, par were willing to further findings exert their authority over the assistant to carry out the harmful actions ouch proximity significantly altered t experiment dynamics - direct physical connection to consequences of actions, by physically forcing learner's hand onto shock plate -> decrease obedience levelts ocial support condition s - 2 confederates joined as teacher. - 1/both confederates refused to shock -> par more likely to question legitimacy of authority figure's commands, less likely to comply niform of authority u lab coat - show authority & expertise -> more obedience 1 ) teachers were allowed to select own voltage levels. 2.5% used max shock level, showing they were not inclined to do so w/o prompting of authority figure Milgram's variants 2) 3 teachers, 2 instructed to protest against the shocks. -> peers protesting the exp -> pa less likely to obey 3) where par could see learner & could interact with learner -> less likely to obey xplained par's behaviour : two states of e behaviour of ppl in social situation 1) autonomous state - ppl direct their own actions, take resp for these actions 2) agentic state - ppl allow others to direct their actions, pass off resp for consequences to the commanding person - 2 conditions for agentic state Milgram's takes a) person giving orders are legitimate b) person being ordered believe that authority will take resp for consequences Subtopic 2 tudied concept of obedience to authority s showed ppl are willing to obey even when they are given orders to hurt their fellow human key insights beings. par had negative emotions during exp, even experienced trauma called inflicted insight articipants were told experiment is on " the p role of punishment in learning" par told roles of teacher & learner will be randomly assigned -> par always teacher, learner was an confederate - lack of proper disclosure, informed deception consent & subsequent debriefing related to deception & par' trauma rodding - money earned upon exp completion p experimenter urged par to proceed ethical issues xposed par to stressful situations that can e cause psychological harm no right to withdraw bedience due more to situational factors ( o experimental setting, status of experimenter, conclusion pressure on participant to continue) than to deviant personality. contradicts Germans are different hypothesis xamine psychological effects of authority & e powerlessness in prison environment the experiment show how "ordinary college students could do terrible things" xamine impact of situational factors & power e dynamics on human behaviour. spec: how individuals would conform to roles of prisoners & guards in a stimulated prison environment hether brutality among guards in American w aim prisons due to dispositional or situational factors situational factors: personalities of prisoners & guards that make conflict inevitable. prisoners - lack respect for law & order, guards - aggressive dispositional factors : due to rigid power structure of social environments in prisons -> prisoners & guards behave hostilely Zimbardo's prediction: situational factors hv bigger impact on behaviour ollege students recruited and divided into c prisoners and guards. PRISONERS: prisoners were arrested by actual police -> handed over to experimenters -> subjected to indignities to stimulate prison environment. wear prisoner uniform, shave heard & carry padlocked chain, referred by ID number. GUARDS: wear mirrored sunglasses & uniform. were ordered to do whatever necessary to maintain law & order in prison & command prisoners. no physical violence. what guards did : rebellion, solitary confinement, psychological tactics, took food procedure away 6th day of exp - terminated, emotional breakdowns of prisoners, excessive aggression of guards Subtopic 2 how how people conform to social roles they s are expected to play, esp if the roles are as strongly stereotypes as prison guards uards were in position of authority -> act in g ways they would not normally act findings rison environment created guards' brutal p behaviour - > situational factors hv bigger impact on behaviour than dispositional factors Stanford Prison Experiment einviduation d - immersed in group norms -> lose sense of identity & responsibility - explain guards behaviour 2 process for submission learned helplessness - prisoner learned that whatever they did cannot change what happened to them -> give up responding f undamental attribution error - tendency to overestimate importance of fundamental personality traits in explaining people's behaviours, underestimate role of context ( dispositional > situational disposition) theories ower of situational forces on human p behaviour conformity - par conform to social pressures o full stimulation of real prison environment n - short duration of exp if compare with real lack ecological validity prison sentences - guards had no professional training - par were college students, no prison exp critical evaluation ost guards were simply role playing. in real m demand characteristics life, behaviour may not be influenced in same way ontrol over variables of study c - emotionally stable volunteers - prisoner/ guard -> tried to eliminate individual personality. advantages igh internal validity of study - prison seemed h real to prisoners, prisoners talked abt prison life in prison riticised: participants were play acting, not c rly conforming to their roles. lack of mundane realism behaviour based on stereotypes of prisoners & guards. disadvantages lack or research support imbardo - researcher & prison Z superintendent -> made it difficult for participants to leave. ethical issues participants want to leave -> worried abt prison as prison superintendent, not worried abt par's mental state as psychologist no right to withdraw deception/ no informed consent ethical issues (4) no debriefing o protection of par from physical & n psychological harm ethical violations lead to development of > ethical guidelines for protection of par from physical & psychological harm
