Transcript INTRO PSYCH Social Influence – Module 44 Nov 23-30, 2009 Class # 37-38

INTRO PSYCH
Social Influence – Module 44
Nov 23-30, 2009
Class # 37-38
Deindividuation Theory


Deindividuation theory is a social
psychological account of the individual in
the crowd
Deindividuation is a psychological state of
decreased self-evaluation, causing antinormative and disinhibited behavior
Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo
(1973)

One of the all-time great sociology/psychology
experiments



Illustrates deindividuation
As we watch this short video clip, think of the person
vs. situation debate
Also, imagine yourself as participants in this ethically
troublesome experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment

Thirty years ago,
a group of young
men were
rounded up by
Palo Alto police
and dropped off
at a new jail -- in
the Stanford
Psychology
Department
These were just like real arrests…


On a quiet Sunday
morning... each was
arrested for violation of
Penal Codes 211, Armed
Robbery or Burglary, a
459 PC
Some arrested still vividly
remember the shock of
having neighbors come
out to watch the
commotion as TV
cameras recorded the
hand-cuffing for the
“nightly news”
Treated poorly from the start…

Strip searched,
sprayed for lice and
locked up with chains
around their ankles,
the "prisoners" were
part of an experiment
to test people's
reactions to power
dynamics in social
situations
Don’t mess with us…

Other college
student volunteers
-- the "guards" -were given
authority to dictate
24-hour-a-day
rules
Soon, they were humiliating the
prisoners…
And it got worse and worse…
It didn’t take long…

Less than 36 hours into
the experiment, Prisoner
#8612 began suffering
from acute emotional
disturbance, disorganized
thinking, uncontrollable
crying, and rage…he was
released
You want us to do what???

Upon hearing of a rumored break-out
Zimbardo panicked…


Instead of sitting back and observing what was to
occur next, like the good experimental psychologist
that he was…
 He went back to the Palo Alto Police Department
and asked the sergeant if “we could have our
prisoners transferred to your jail for at least one
night”
Zimbardo had also totally fallen into
his role
Parole Board


During the parole hearings they also witnessed
an unexpected metamorphosis of the prison
consultant as he adopted the role of head of the
Parole Board
He literally became the most hated authoritarian
official imaginable, so much so that when the
experiment was over he felt sick at who he had
become…

He acted no different than his own tormentor who
had previously rejected his annual parole requests for
16 years when he was a prisoner
“I think it is terrible what you
are doing to those boys”


Christina Maslach was a recent PhD
graduate at Stanford and in a romantic
relationship with Zimbardo
She almost got physically ill when
seeing the cruelty
Her reactions convinced Zimbardo it
was time to call it off…

Maslach realized that the experiment was
becoming very ugly…she couldn’t believe
some of the transformations…


Upon her arrival, she had a pleasant
conversation with a "charming, funny, smart"
young man waiting to start his guard shift
Other researchers had told her there was a
particularly sadistic guard, whom both
prisoners and other guards had nicknamed
John Wayne
Which one is “John Wayne”?

Later, when she looked at
the monitor of the prison
yard again, she asked
someone to point out
John Wayne and was
shocked to discover it
was the young man she
had talked with earlier…
Jekyll and Hyde experience

He was talking in a different accent a
Southern accent, which she hadn't
recalled at all
He moved differently, and the way he
talked was different, not just in the
accent, but in the way he was
interacting with the prisoners
 “It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde”

Interesting note…

Christina Maslach was one of about 50
visitors who had arrived after the
experiment had began…


She was the only one who complained about
it
The only one who suggested that it be
stopped
Full debriefing…

Zimbardo: On the last day,
we held a series of
encounter sessions, first
with all the guards, then
with all the prisoners
(including those who had
been released earlier), and
finally with the guards,
prisoners, and staff
together. We did this in
order to get everyone's
feelings out in the open…
Who am I ?



None of the guards left the experiment –
most seemed to enjoy it
The prisoners were abused – some
sobbed their way out
What would you have done
differently had you been a guard? A
prisoner?
Crowds and Deindividuation:
The Halloween Studies


Dierner et al. (1976)
 Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely
to steal extra candy than individual
kids, unless they were individuated by
being asked their names
Beaman et al. (1979)
 Anonymous children in Halloween
costumes stole more from a candy jar
than kids asked their first names
 Even less likely to steal if a mirror was
put behind the candy bowl
Back to the real world…

Mullen (1986)

Bigger the mob, the greater the atrocities
Zimbardo (1970):
The abandoned car study

Palo Alto, California vs. NYC
Conformity

Changing one’s behavior to match the
responses or actions of others (no
pressure necessarily)
The Chameleon Effect

Chartrand and
Bargh (1999)

Participant and
confederate worked
on a task together
Is behavior contagious?

Milgram et al. (1969)


Research confederates congregated and
craned their necks to gawk at a window on
the 6th floor of an apartment building
80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed
upward
Uncertainty

In ambiguous situations, people tend to
rely on information provided by others


Sherif asked students to judge the apparent
movement of a stationary light on a wall
Autokinetic Effect

A stationary spot of light in a dark room
appears to move
Sherif (1937)

Put yourself in the role of the participant…
 Day 1
 Participant stares at a pinpoint of light
about 15 feet away
 The light seems to be moving but you can’t
be sure…after a few seconds it disappears
Sherif: How far did it move?
 Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe
about 8 inches

Sherif (1937)


Day 2
 The participant is now joined by three confederates
 This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about
15 feet away
 Again, you think it moved about 8 inches
 Sherif: How far did it move?
 Confederate 1: 2 inches
 Confederate 2: an inch or two
 Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one
inch
 Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inches
Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazy
Sherif (1937)

Day 3


The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “about 4 inches”
Day 4

The same situation as Day 2 except this time
you reply “its probably like 2 inches”
Conformity:
Asch’s Research on Group Influence

Lets look at Asch’s
classic research
studies involving
group pressure…
 Asch (1951,
1952, 1956)
Asch (1951)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
In this early
version, Asch had
16 “naïve”
participants with 1
confederate who
gave incorrect
answers
A
Asch (1951)

Results:

Participants laughed at and ridiculed the
confederate
But when the participant was surrounded by
confederates…

Asch’s Research on Group Influence
(1951, 1952, 1956)



Series of experiments most done with 1 participant
and 5-8 confederates
Real participant would give their judgment after
several confederates had already given theirs
After a round or two of hearing what appeared to
be obvious wrong answers the real participant
began to squirm and squint (see next slide)
Asch (1956)

Which of the lines on the left most closely
matches line A on the right?

1 2 3
What would you say if
you were in a group
of 6 others, and all
agreed the answer
was 2?
A
Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all the
answers correct…

1 2 3
When confronted by the
unanimous incorrect
majority, participants
conformed 37% of the
time…in fact 75% went
against their own eyes at
least once if the group
gave a wrong answer
A
Asch (1956)

Some participants said they didn’t want to look
silly or be rejected by the rest of the group


This is referred to as normative social influence
 They wanted to “fit in” with the others
Some participants said it was because they
thought the others must have had better
eyesight or be better informed in some way

This is referred to as informational social
influence
 They
were basically utilizing others as a
source of information
Asch’s conclusions…conditions that
strengthen conformity

The following were influential insofar as
conformity was concerned...



Group size
Incompetent and insecure individuals
Group’s status and attractiveness
Group size

As the number of people increases so
does conformity…


Asch varied the size of his groups using 1 to
15 confederates in his many studies
Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the
amount of additional influence was negligible
Incompetent and insecure individuals

When one is made to feel incompetent or
insecure conformity is likely
Group’s status and attractiveness

Kind of goes without saying…if its a group
you want to be a part of – you will likely
conform to its opinions
Asch’s conclusions…conditions
that weaken conformity


Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect”
Independence
Presence of an ally


The presence of a true partner, who agreed with
the subject, reduced conformity by 80%
When we have an ally, we can diffuse the
pressure because we are not the only one
breaking the norm


Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s
convictions than when one is part of even a tiny
minority
Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to
conform
Independence


Some people care more about standing up
for their rights than being disliked
In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone
dissenter resisted the pressure to conform
Asch (1956)

Bottom-line Conclusion:


People faced with strong group consensus
sometimes go along even though they think
the others may be wrong
And these are strangers…what if they were
member’s of your own circle of friends?
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif:


Because of ambiguity, participants turned to
each other for guidance
Asch:


Participants often found themselves in an
awkward position
It was obvious that group was wrong
Difference between Asch & Sherif studies

Sherif (moving light)

Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct answer
Reasonable to consider other’s views
 Participants later adopted social norms



Conformity leads to internalization
Asch (parallel lines)

Participants knew there was a correct
answer

Conformity does not lead to internalization
Types of Conformity

Private Conformity:


Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs
Public Conformity:

Superficial change in overt behavior only
Types of Conformity
Active and Public Commitments

Students in one experiment were asked to
judge lines in an Asch-type experiment

Before hearing group members make
erroneous judgments:
Some privately wrote down their judgments
(Active Commitment Only)
 Others wrote their judgments and gave them to
the experimenter (Active plus Public Commitment)

% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
Public Commitments
Of those who made NO
COMMITMENT to their
original decisions, only
about half stuck with
them in the face of group
pressure
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
100%
Making a PRIVATE
COMMITMENT
increased the likelihood
of sticking to the original
correct judgment
Public Commitments
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
Active
Only
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
% Sticking w. Orig. Judgment
100%
Making the commitment
PUBLIC further
increased the likelihood
of resisting group
pressure
Public Commitments
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Neither
Active nor
public
Active
Only
Active Plus
Public
COMMITMENT
Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
Obedience

Milgram (1963)


Obedience experiments
The behavior change that comes in response
to a demand from an authority figure
Obedience

Most authority figures have been given their
authority by society


We are just told to follow what they tell you to do
Every person at some time in their life has
followed a superior without questioning why
they are doing what they are doing


For example we never question why we take tests in
school
We just take them because we are told to do so
Milgram’s questionnaire…




Everyone answering Milgram's questionnaire
said they would refuse to punish the learner
They also believed that other people would
disobey
Most people reject unnecessary pain and
therefore would not follow brutal orders
The responses of college students, psychiatrists,
and middle-class adults all predicted that only
1% or 2% of the general population would obey
such orders fully, administering the highest
shock available
Milgram Obedience
Experiments


Psychiatrists guessed
that 1 in 1000 would
go clear to 450 volts
(only “true
psychopaths”)
But, in the original
study, 26/40 went all
the way
Results of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment
Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.
What would you have done?

Don’t commit
the
Fundamental
Attribution
Error!
Factors Affecting Obedience in original study

Prestige and status of authority figure


Person giving orders was close at hand


Milgram was right there
Victims were depersonalized


Supported by prestigious institution
Out of sight
Presence of others who disobey

Here, no role models who disobeyed
In replications…

Legitimacy of Authority


Proximity of Authority Figure


When Milgram gave commands by telephone, compliance
dropped to 21%
Emotional Distance



When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%
When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to
40%
When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance
fell to 30%
Group Influence

When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only 10% of
real subjects fully complied with the orders
Factors That
Influence Obedience
Based on information in Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram (c) 1974. Reprinted with permission..
Explanations for Obedience

Cognitive Dissonance



Behavior (shocking learner)
conflicted with belief (learner is a
decent person)
So solution is to alter belief:
“He’s such an idiot he deserves to
get shocked”
The experimental procedure
itself


Participants were led to feel
relieved of personal responsibility
for the victim’s welfare
Gradual escalation of shocks was
used

Which technique already
discussed did Milgram utilize?
Milgram’s Experiments


Relevance of Milgram’s research to today’s
society…
Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s
obedience experiments…


Milgram’s participants were tormented by
experience
Well, Milgram reported that 84 percent of
subjects later said they were glad to have
participated
The Learner’s Protests
The Prods Used in
Milgram’s Experiment




“Please continue”
“The experiment requires that you
continue”
“It is absolutely essential that you
continue”
“You have no other choice; you must
go on”
The Obedient Participant


No gender differences observed in level of
obedience
Milgram’s basic findings have been
replicated in several different countries
and among different age groups
Social Facilitation

If performance can be individually
evaluated, the presence of others will be
arousing (improve performance on simple
tasks but interfere with performance on
complex tasks)
Triplett (1898)


Was one of the first scientists to ask the
question "What happens when individuals
join together with other individuals?"
Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast,
noticed that cyclists performed better in
races than they did when they were paced
by motor-driven cycles or when they were
timed riding the course alone
Zajonc (1965)

Proposed that the mere presence of others
increases arousal which in turn affects our
performance
Zajonc (1969)

Cockroach study


Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at
one end of the tube…
To escape the light, the cockroach had to run
down the tube and into a darkened box at the
other end of the tube…
IV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches
 DV: Speed of escape


Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape
when other cockroaches were present
Criticisms of Zajonc


Support for this model was eroded when
later studies showed that the type of
audience was important e.g. home or away
fans
The exact mechanism behind the social
facilitation has yet to be determined but all
of the following have been proposed:
heightened self-awareness, selfconsciousness, self-presentation concern,
self-monitoring and self-attention
Michaels et al. (1982)

Secretly rated pool players in a hall as
above average or below average ability…


Then a group of confederates came and stood
by their table as they played
The above average players' shot accuracy
improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the
below average players slipped from 36 to 25%
accurate
Social Loafing

If performance cannot be individually
evaluated, the presence of others will lead
to a diminished effort on the part each
person
Latane et al. (1979)



IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in groups of
2, 4, or 6 people
DV: amount of noise made by each
participant
Results:

As the size of the group, individual sound
decreased
Why the lack of effort?




They feel less accountable and therefore worry
less about what others think
They view their contribution as dispensable
Often feel they can get away with “free-riding”
Plain and simple reality?
 People are motivated by rewards…if they
don’t feel they’ll get any credit then they
probably won’t bust their…
Group Polarization


The exaggeration through group
discussion on initial tendencies in the
thinking of group members
For example:

Low prejudice groups can become less
prejudiced and high prejudiced groups can
become more prejudiced
Groupthink


Group decision-making that is not optimal,
sometimes disastrous, because the group’s
primary goal is consensus instead of
accuracy
Example:
 U.S. Space Shuttle Challenger explosion
Credits

Some pictures and slides in this presentation prepared by:
http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/USculture/980623conformity.gif
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/milgram/conform.htm