INTRO PSYCHINTRO PSYCH

Social Influence – Module 44Social Influence – Module 44

April 16-19, 2010April 16-19, 2010Class #34-35Class #34-35

Deindividuation TheoryDeindividuation Theory

Deindividuation theory is a social Deindividuation theory is a social psychological account of the psychological account of the individual in the crowdindividual in the crowd

Deindividuation is a psychological Deindividuation is a psychological state of decreased self-evaluation, state of decreased self-evaluation, causing anti-normative and causing anti-normative and disinhibited behaviordisinhibited behavior

Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo (1973)(1973)

One of the all-time great One of the all-time great sociology/psychology experimentssociology/psychology experiments Illustrates deindividuationIllustrates deindividuation As we watch this short video clip, think of the As we watch this short video clip, think of the

person vs. situation debateperson vs. situation debate Also, imagine yourself as participants in this Also, imagine yourself as participants in this

ethically troublesome experiment ethically troublesome experiment

Stanford Prison ExperimentStanford Prison Experiment

Thirty years ago, Thirty years ago, a group of a group of young men were young men were rounded up by rounded up by Palo Alto police Palo Alto police and dropped off and dropped off at a new jail -- in at a new jail -- in the Stanford the Stanford Psychology Psychology DepartmentDepartment

These were just like real arrests…These were just like real arrests…

On a quiet Sunday On a quiet Sunday morning... each was morning... each was arrested for violation of arrested for violation of Penal Codes 211, Armed Penal Codes 211, Armed Robbery or Burglary, a Robbery or Burglary, a 459 PC459 PC

Some arrested still vividly Some arrested still vividly remember the shock of remember the shock of having neighbors come having neighbors come out to watch the out to watch the commotion as TV commotion as TV cameras recorded the cameras recorded the hand-cuffing for the hand-cuffing for the “nightly news” “nightly news”

Treated poorly from the Treated poorly from the start…start…

Strip searched, Strip searched, sprayed for lice and sprayed for lice and locked up with locked up with chains around their chains around their ankles, the ankles, the "prisoners" were "prisoners" were part of an part of an experiment to test experiment to test people's reactions people's reactions to power dynamics to power dynamics in social situationsin social situations

Don’t mess with us…Don’t mess with us…

Other college Other college student student volunteers -- the volunteers -- the "guards" -- were "guards" -- were given authority given authority to dictate 24-to dictate 24-hour-a-day ruleshour-a-day rules

Soon, they were humiliating Soon, they were humiliating the prisoners…the prisoners…

And it got worse and And it got worse and worse…worse…

It didn’t take long…It didn’t take long…

Less than 36 hours Less than 36 hours into the experiment, into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute suffering from acute emotional emotional disturbance, disturbance, disorganized thinking, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, uncontrollable crying, and rage…he was and rage…he was released released

You want us to do You want us to do what???what???

Upon hearing of a rumored break-out Upon hearing of a rumored break-out Zimbardo panicked…Zimbardo panicked… Instead of sitting back and observing what was to Instead of sitting back and observing what was to

occur next, like the good experimental psychologist occur next, like the good experimental psychologist that he was…that he was…

He went back to the Palo Alto Police Department and He went back to the Palo Alto Police Department and asked the sergeant if “we could have our prisoners asked the sergeant if “we could have our prisoners transferred to your jail for at least one night”transferred to your jail for at least one night”

Zimbardo had also totally fallen into Zimbardo had also totally fallen into his rolehis role

Parole BoardParole Board

During the parole hearings they also witnessed During the parole hearings they also witnessed an unexpected metamorphosis of the prison an unexpected metamorphosis of the prison consultant as he adopted the role of head of the consultant as he adopted the role of head of the Parole BoardParole Board

He literally became the most hated He literally became the most hated authoritarian official imaginable, so much so authoritarian official imaginable, so much so that when the experiment was over he felt sick that when the experiment was over he felt sick at who he had become…at who he had become… He acted no different than his own tormentor who He acted no different than his own tormentor who

had previously rejected his annual parole requests had previously rejected his annual parole requests for 16 years when he was a prisoner for 16 years when he was a prisoner

““I think it is terrible what I think it is terrible what you are doing to those you are doing to those

boys”boys” Christina Maslach was a recent Christina Maslach was a recent

PhD graduate at Stanford and in a PhD graduate at Stanford and in a romantic relationship with romantic relationship with ZimbardoZimbardo

She almost got physically ill when She almost got physically ill when seeing the crueltyseeing the cruelty

Her reactions convinced Zimbardo Her reactions convinced Zimbardo it was time to call it off…it was time to call it off…

Maslach realized that the experiment Maslach realized that the experiment was becoming very ugly…she couldn’t was becoming very ugly…she couldn’t believe some of the transformations…believe some of the transformations… Upon her arrival, she had a pleasant Upon her arrival, she had a pleasant

conversation with a "charming, funny, conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man waiting to start his smart" young man waiting to start his guard shiftguard shift

Other researchers had told her there was Other researchers had told her there was a particularly sadistic guard, whom both a particularly sadistic guard, whom both prisoners and other guards had prisoners and other guards had nicknamed John Waynenicknamed John Wayne

Which one is “John Which one is “John Wayne”?Wayne”?

Later, when she Later, when she looked at the monitor looked at the monitor of the prison yard of the prison yard again, she asked again, she asked someone to point out someone to point out John Wayne and was John Wayne and was shocked to discover it shocked to discover it was the young man was the young man she had talked with she had talked with earlier…earlier…

Jekyll and Hyde experienceJekyll and Hyde experience

He was talking in a different He was talking in a different accent a Southern accent, which accent a Southern accent, which she hadn't recalled at allshe hadn't recalled at all He moved differently, and the way He moved differently, and the way

he talked was different, not just in he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisonersinteracting with the prisoners

““It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde”It was like seeing Jekyll and Hyde”

Interesting note…Interesting note…

Christina Maslach was one of about Christina Maslach was one of about 50 visitors who had arrived after the 50 visitors who had arrived after the experiment had began…experiment had began… She was the only one who complained She was the only one who complained

about itabout it The only one who suggested that it be The only one who suggested that it be

stoppedstopped

Full debriefing…Full debriefing…

Zimbardo: On the last Zimbardo: On the last day, we held a series of day, we held a series of encounter sessions, first encounter sessions, first with all the guards, then with all the guards, then with all the prisoners with all the prisoners (including those who had (including those who had been released earlier), been released earlier), and finally with the and finally with the guards, prisoners, and guards, prisoners, and staff together. We did this staff together. We did this in order to get everyone's in order to get everyone's feelings out in the open… feelings out in the open…

Who am I ?Who am I ?

None of the guards left the None of the guards left the experiment – most seemed to enjoy itexperiment – most seemed to enjoy it

The prisoners were abused – some The prisoners were abused – some sobbed their way outsobbed their way out

What would you have done What would you have done differently had you been a guard? differently had you been a guard? A prisoner?A prisoner?

Crowds and Deindividuation: Crowds and Deindividuation: The Halloween StudiesThe Halloween Studies

Dierner et al. (1976)Dierner et al. (1976) Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely Trick-or-treaters in groups more likely

to steal extra candy than individual to steal extra candy than individual kids, unless they were individuated kids, unless they were individuated by being asked their namesby being asked their names

Beaman et al. (1979)Beaman et al. (1979) Anonymous children in Anonymous children in Halloween Halloween

costumescostumes stole more from a candy stole more from a candy jar than kids asked their first names jar than kids asked their first names

Even less likely to steal if a mirror Even less likely to steal if a mirror was put behind the candy bowlwas put behind the candy bowl

Back to the real world…Back to the real world…

Mullen (1986)Mullen (1986) Bigger the mob, the greater the Bigger the mob, the greater the

atrocitiesatrocities

Zimbardo (1970):Zimbardo (1970):The abandoned car studyThe abandoned car study

Palo Alto, California vs. NYCPalo Alto, California vs. NYC

ConformityConformity

Changing one’s behavior Changing one’s behavior to match to match the responses or actions of others the responses or actions of others (no pressure necessarily)(no pressure necessarily)

The Chameleon EffectThe Chameleon Effect

Chartrand and Chartrand and Bargh (1999)Bargh (1999) Participant and Participant and

confederate confederate worked on a task worked on a task togethertogether

Is behavior contagious?Is behavior contagious?

Milgram et al. (1969) Milgram et al. (1969) Research confederates congregated and Research confederates congregated and

craned their necks to gawk at a window craned their necks to gawk at a window on the 6on the 6thth floor of an apartment building floor of an apartment building

80% of all passers-by stopped and 80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed upwardgazed upward

UncertaintyUncertainty

In In ambiguous situations,ambiguous situations, people tend people tend to rely on information provided by to rely on information provided by othersothers Sherif asked students to judge the Sherif asked students to judge the

apparent movement of a stationary light apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall on a wall

Autokinetic EffectAutokinetic Effect A stationary spot of light in a dark room A stationary spot of light in a dark room

appears to moveappears to move

Sherif (1937)Sherif (1937)

Put yourself in the role of the Put yourself in the role of the participant…participant… Day 1Day 1

Participant stares at a pinpoint of light Participant stares at a pinpoint of light about 15 feet awayabout 15 feet away

The light seems to be moving but you The light seems to be moving but you can’t be sure…after a few seconds it can’t be sure…after a few seconds it disappearsdisappears

Sherif: How far did it move? Sherif: How far did it move? Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe Participant: I’m not really sure but maybe

about 8 inchesabout 8 inches

Sherif (1937)Sherif (1937)

Day 2Day 2 The participant is now joined by three confederatesThe participant is now joined by three confederates This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about This time all four stare at the pinpoint of light about

15 feet away15 feet away Again, you think it moved about 8 inchesAgain, you think it moved about 8 inches

Sherif: How far did it move?Sherif: How far did it move? Confederate 1: 2 inchesConfederate 1: 2 inches Confederate 2: an inch or twoConfederate 2: an inch or two Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one Confederate 3: oh, no it can’t be more than one

inchinch Participant: oh, I guess about 6 inchesParticipant: oh, I guess about 6 inches

Everyone else looks at you as if you are crazyEveryone else looks at you as if you are crazy

Sherif (1937)Sherif (1937)

Day 3Day 3 The same situation as Day 2 except this The same situation as Day 2 except this

time you reply “about 4 inches”time you reply “about 4 inches” Day 4Day 4

The same situation as Day 2 except this The same situation as Day 2 except this time you reply “its probably like 2 time you reply “its probably like 2 inches”inches”

Conformity: Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Asch’s Research on Group

InfluenceInfluence Lets look at Lets look at

Asch’s classic Asch’s classic research studies research studies involving group involving group pressure…pressure… Asch (1951, Asch (1951,

1952, 19561952, 1956))

Which of the lines on the left most closely Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right?matches line A on the right?

A1 2 3

In this early In this early version, Asch version, Asch had 16 “naïve” had 16 “naïve” participants with participants with 1 confederate 1 confederate who gave who gave incorrect incorrect answersanswers

Asch (1951)Asch (1951)

Asch (1951)Asch (1951)

Results:Results: Participants laughed at and ridiculed the Participants laughed at and ridiculed the

confederateconfederate

But when the participant was surrounded But when the participant was surrounded by confederates…by confederates…

Asch’s Research on Group Influence Asch’s Research on Group Influence (1951, 1952, 1956)(1951, 1952, 1956) Series of experiments most done with 1 Series of experiments most done with 1

participant and 5-8 confederatesparticipant and 5-8 confederates Real participant would give their judgment after Real participant would give their judgment after

several confederates had already given theirsseveral confederates had already given theirs After a round or two of hearing what appeared After a round or two of hearing what appeared

to be obvious wrong answers the real to be obvious wrong answers the real participant began to squirm and squint (see participant began to squirm and squint (see next slide)next slide)

Which of the lines on the left most closely Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right?matches line A on the right?

A1 2 3

What would you What would you say if you were in a say if you were in a group of 6 others, group of 6 others, and all agreed the and all agreed the answer was 2? answer was 2?

Asch (1956)Asch (1956)

When alone, 95% of participants got all When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct…the answers correct…

A1 2 3

When confronted by When confronted by the unanimous the unanimous incorrect majority, incorrect majority, participants participants conformed 37% of the conformed 37% of the time…in fact time…in fact 75%75% went against their own went against their own eyes at least once if eyes at least once if the group gave a the group gave a wrong answerwrong answer

Asch (1956)Asch (1956)

Asch (1956)Asch (1956) Some participants said they didn’t want to look Some participants said they didn’t want to look

silly or be rejected by the rest of the groupsilly or be rejected by the rest of the group This is referred to as normative social This is referred to as normative social

influenceinfluence They wanted to “fit in” with the othersThey wanted to “fit in” with the others

Some participants said it was because they Some participants said it was because they thought the others must have had better thought the others must have had better eyesight or be better informed in some wayeyesight or be better informed in some way This is referred to as informational social This is referred to as informational social

influenceinfluence They were basically utilizing others as a They were basically utilizing others as a

source of informationsource of information

Asch’s conclusions…conditions that Asch’s conclusions…conditions that strengthen conformitystrengthen conformity

The following were influential insofar The following were influential insofar as conformity was concerned...as conformity was concerned... Group sizeGroup size Incompetent and insecure Incompetent and insecure

individualsindividuals Group’s status and attractivenessGroup’s status and attractiveness

Group sizeGroup size

As the number of people increases so As the number of people increases so does conformity…does conformity… Asch varied the size of his groups using Asch varied the size of his groups using

1 to 15 confederates in his many studies1 to 15 confederates in his many studies Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the Once there was 3 or 4 confederates, the

amount of additional influence was amount of additional influence was negligible negligible

Incompetent and insecure Incompetent and insecure individualsindividuals

When one is made to feel When one is made to feel incompetent or insecure conformity incompetent or insecure conformity is likelyis likely

Group’s status and Group’s status and attractivenessattractiveness

Kind of goes without saying…if its a Kind of goes without saying…if its a group you want to be a part of – you group you want to be a part of – you will likely conform to its opinions will likely conform to its opinions

Asch’s conclusions…conditions Asch’s conclusions…conditions that weaken conformitythat weaken conformity

Presence of an ally – the “true partner Presence of an ally – the “true partner effect”effect”

IndependenceIndependence

Presence of an allyPresence of an ally

The presence of a true partner, who The presence of a true partner, who agreed with the subject, reduced agreed with the subject, reduced conformity by 80%conformity by 80%

When we have an ally, we can diffuse the When we have an ally, we can diffuse the pressure because we are not the only one pressure because we are not the only one breaking the normbreaking the norm Substantially more difficult to stand alone for Substantially more difficult to stand alone for

one’s convictions than when one is part of one’s convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minorityeven a tiny minority

Any dissent can reduce the normative Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conformpressures to conform

IndependenceIndependence

Some people care more about Some people care more about standing up for their rights than standing up for their rights than being dislikedbeing disliked

In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a In the movie, “12 Angry Men” – a lone dissenter resisted the pressure lone dissenter resisted the pressure to conformto conform

Asch (1956)Asch (1956)

Bottom-line Conclusion:Bottom-line Conclusion: People faced with strong group People faced with strong group

consensus sometimes go along even consensus sometimes go along even though they think the others may be though they think the others may be wrongwrong

And these are strangers…what if they And these are strangers…what if they were member’s of your own circle of were member’s of your own circle of friends? friends?

Difference between Asch & Sherif Difference between Asch & Sherif studiesstudies

Sherif:Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants Because of ambiguity, participants

turned to each other for guidanceturned to each other for guidance Asch:Asch:

Participants often found themselves in Participants often found themselves in an awkward positionan awkward position

It was obvious that group was wrongIt was obvious that group was wrong

Difference between Asch & Sherif Difference between Asch & Sherif studiesstudies

Sherif (moving light)Sherif (moving light) Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct Subject didn’t know wasn’t correct

answeranswer Reasonable to consider other’s viewsReasonable to consider other’s views Participants later adopted social normsParticipants later adopted social norms

Conformity leads to internalizationConformity leads to internalization

Asch (parallel lines)Asch (parallel lines) Participants knew there was a correct Participants knew there was a correct

answeranswer Conformity does not lead to internalizationConformity does not lead to internalization

Types of ConformityTypes of Conformity

Private Conformity:Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and Changes in both overt behavior and

beliefsbeliefs Public Conformity:Public Conformity:

Superficial change in overt behavior Superficial change in overt behavior onlyonly

Types of ConformityTypes of Conformity

Active and Public Active and Public CommitmentsCommitments

Students in one experiment were asked Students in one experiment were asked to judge lines in an Asch-type to judge lines in an Asch-type experimentexperiment Before hearing group members make Before hearing group members make

erroneous judgments:erroneous judgments: Some privately wrote down their judgments Some privately wrote down their judgments

(Active Commitment Only)(Active Commitment Only) Others wrote their judgments and gave them to Others wrote their judgments and gave them to

the experimenter the experimenter (Active plus Public (Active plus Public Commitment)Commitment)

100%100% 100%100%

80%80%80%80%

60%60%60%60%

40%40%40%40%

20%20%20%20%

0% 0% 0% 0%

COMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENT

Public Commitments

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

Jud

gm

en

tJu

dg

men

t%

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. %

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. Ju

dg

men

tJu

dg

men

t

Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

Of those who made NO COMMITMENT to their

original decisions, only about half stuck with

them in the face of group pressure

100%100% 100%100%

80%80%80%80%

60%60%60%60%

40%40%40%40%

20%20%20%20%

0% 0% 0% 0%

COMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENT

Public Commitments

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

Active Active OnlyOnly

Active Active OnlyOnly

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

Jud

gm

en

tJu

dg

men

t%

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. %

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. Ju

dg

men

tJu

dg

men

t

Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

Making a PRIVATE COMMITMENT

increased the likelihood of sticking to the original

correct judgment

100%100% 100%100%

80%80%80%80%

60%60%60%60%

40%40%40%40%

20%20%20%20%

0% 0% 0% 0%

COMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENTCOMMITMENT

Public Commitments

ActiveActive OnlyOnly

ActiveActive OnlyOnly

Active Active Plus PublicPlus Public

Active Active Plus PublicPlus Public

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

% S

tick

ing

w.

Ori

g.

Jud

gm

en

tJu

dg

men

t%

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. %

Sti

ckin

g w

. O

rig

. Ju

dg

men

tJu

dg

men

t

Deutsch & Gerard, 1955

Making the commitment PUBLIC further

increased the likelihood of resisting group

pressure

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

Neither Neither Active Active

nor nor publicpublic

ObedienceObedience

Milgram (1963)Milgram (1963) Obedience experimentsObedience experiments The behavior change that comes in The behavior change that comes in

response to a demand from an authority response to a demand from an authority figurefigure

ObedienceObedience

Most authority figures have been given Most authority figures have been given their authority by societytheir authority by society We are just told to follow what they tell you to We are just told to follow what they tell you to

do do Every person at some time in their life has Every person at some time in their life has

followed a superior without questioning why followed a superior without questioning why they are doing what they are doingthey are doing what they are doing For example we never question why we take For example we never question why we take

tests in schooltests in school We just take them because we are told to do soWe just take them because we are told to do so

Milgram’s Milgram’s questionnaire…questionnaire…

Everyone answering Milgram's questionnaire Everyone answering Milgram's questionnaire said they would refuse to punish the learnersaid they would refuse to punish the learner

They also believed that other people would They also believed that other people would disobeydisobey

Most people reject unnecessary pain and Most people reject unnecessary pain and therefore would not follow brutal orderstherefore would not follow brutal orders

The responses of college students, The responses of college students, psychiatrists, and middle-class adults all psychiatrists, and middle-class adults all predicted that only 1% or 2% of the general predicted that only 1% or 2% of the general population would obey such orders fully, population would obey such orders fully, administering the highest shock available administering the highest shock available

Milgram Obedience Milgram Obedience ExperimentsExperiments

Psychiatrists Psychiatrists guessed that 1 in guessed that 1 in 1000 would go 1000 would go clear to 450 volts clear to 450 volts (only “true (only “true psychopaths”)psychopaths”)

But, in the original But, in the original study, 26/40 went study, 26/40 went all the wayall the way

Results of Milgram’s Obedience ExperimentResults of Milgram’s Obedience ExperimentResults of Milgram’s Obedience ExperimentResults 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 What would you have done?done?

Don’t Don’t commit the commit the FundamentFundamental al Attribution Attribution Error!Error!

Factors Affecting Obedience in original Factors Affecting Obedience in original studystudy

Prestige and status of authority figurePrestige and status of authority figure Supported by prestigious institutionSupported by prestigious institution

Person giving orders was close at handPerson giving orders was close at hand Milgram was right there Milgram was right there

Victims were depersonalizedVictims were depersonalized Out of sightOut of sight

Presence of others who disobeyPresence of others who disobey Here, no role models who disobeyedHere, no role models who disobeyed

In replications…In replications…

Legitimacy of AuthorityLegitimacy of Authority When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%When a “clerk” gave the orders, compliance was 20%

Proximity of Authority FigureProximity of Authority Figure When Milgram gave commands by telephone, When Milgram gave commands by telephone,

compliance dropped to 21%compliance dropped to 21% Emotional DistanceEmotional Distance

When learner was in the same room, full compliance When learner was in the same room, full compliance dropped to 40%dropped to 40%

When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, When teacher applied learner’s hand to shock plate, compliance fell to 30%compliance fell to 30%

Group InfluenceGroup Influence When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only When two confederates “refused” to keep going, only

10% of real subjects fully complied with the orders 10% of real subjects fully complied with the orders

Factors That Factors That Influence ObedienceInfluence Obedience

Based on information in Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram (c) 1974. Reprinted with permission..

Explanations for Explanations for ObedienceObedience

Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance Behavior (shocking learner) Behavior (shocking learner)

conflicted with belief (learner conflicted with belief (learner is a decent person)is a decent person)

So solution is to alter belief: So solution is to alter belief: “He’s such an idiot he “He’s such an idiot he deserves to get shocked”deserves to get shocked”

The experimental The experimental procedure itselfprocedure itself Participants were led to feel Participants were led to feel

relieved of personal relieved of personal responsibility for the victim’s responsibility for the victim’s welfarewelfare

Gradual escalation of shocks Gradual escalation of shocks was usedwas used

Which technique already Which technique already discussed did Milgram utilize?discussed did Milgram utilize?

Milgram’s ExperimentsMilgram’s Experiments

Relevance of Milgram’s research to Relevance of Milgram’s research to today’s society…today’s society…

Ethical questions surrounding Ethical questions surrounding Milgram’s obedience experiments…Milgram’s obedience experiments… Milgram’s participants were tormented Milgram’s participants were tormented

by experienceby experience Well, Milgram reported that 84 percent Well, Milgram reported that 84 percent

of subjects later said they were glad to of subjects later said they were glad to have participatedhave participated

The Learner’s ProtestsThe Learner’s Protests

The Prods Used in The Prods Used in Milgram’s ExperimentMilgram’s Experiment

““Please continue”Please continue” ““The experiment requires that you The experiment requires that you

continue”continue” ““It is absolutely essential that you It is absolutely essential that you

continue”continue” ““You have no other choice; you You have no other choice; you

must must go on”go on”

The Obedient ParticipantThe Obedient Participant

No gender differences observed in No gender differences observed in level of obediencelevel of obedience

Milgram’s basic findings have been Milgram’s basic findings have been replicated in several different replicated in several different countries and among different age countries and among different age groupsgroups

Social FacilitationSocial Facilitation

If performance can be individually If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing (improve performance on be arousing (improve performance on simple tasks but interfere with simple tasks but interfere with performance on complex tasks) performance on complex tasks)

Triplett (1898)Triplett (1898)

Was one of the first scientists to ask the Was one of the first scientists to ask the question "What happens when question "What happens when individuals join together with other individuals join together with other individuals?"individuals?"

Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in noticed that cyclists performed better in races than they did when they were races than they did when they were paced by motor-driven cycles or when paced by motor-driven cycles or when they were timed riding the course alonethey were timed riding the course alone

Zajonc (1965)Zajonc (1965)

Proposed that the mere presence of Proposed that the mere presence of others increases arousal which in turn others increases arousal which in turn affects our performanceaffects our performance

Zajonc (1969)Zajonc (1969)

Cockroach studyCockroach study Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light

at one end of the tube…at one end of the tube… To escape the light, the cockroach had to run To escape the light, the cockroach had to run

down the tube and into a darkened box at the down the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of the tube…other end of the tube…

IV: Presence or absence of other cockroachesIV: Presence or absence of other cockroaches DV: Speed of escapeDV: Speed of escape

Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape Results: Cockroaches were faster to escape when other cockroaches were presentwhen other cockroaches were present

Criticisms of ZajoncCriticisms of Zajonc Support for this model was eroded when Support for this model was eroded when

later studies showed that the type of later studies showed that the type of audience was important e.g. home or audience was important e.g. home or away fansaway fans

The exact mechanism behind the social The exact mechanism behind the social facilitation has yet to be determined but facilitation has yet to be determined but all of the following have been proposed: all of the following have been proposed: heightened self-awareness, self-heightened self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-presentation concern, consciousness, self-presentation concern, self-monitoring and self-attention self-monitoring and self-attention

Michaels et al. (1982)Michaels et al. (1982)

Secretly rated pool players in a hall as Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average above average or below average ability…ability… Then a group of confederates came and Then a group of confederates came and

stood by their table as they playedstood by their table as they played The above average players' shot accuracy The above average players' shot accuracy

improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average players slipped from 36 the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate to 25% accurate

Social LoafingSocial Loafing

If performance cannot be individually If performance cannot be individually evaluated, the presence of others will evaluated, the presence of others will lead to a diminished effort on the part lead to a diminished effort on the part each personeach person

Latane et al. (1979)Latane et al. (1979)

IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in IV: clapping alone vs. clapping in groups of 2, 4, or 6 peoplegroups of 2, 4, or 6 people

DV: amount of noise made by each DV: amount of noise made by each participantparticipant

Results: Results: As the size of the group, individual As the size of the group, individual

sound decreasedsound decreased

Why the lack of effort?Why the lack of effort?

They feel less accountable and therefore They feel less accountable and therefore worry less about what others thinkworry less about what others think

They view their contribution as They view their contribution as dispensable dispensable

Often feel they can get away with “free-Often feel they can get away with “free-riding”riding”

Plain and simple reality? Plain and simple reality? People are motivated by rewards…if People are motivated by rewards…if

they don’t feel they’ll get any credit they don’t feel they’ll get any credit then they probably won’t bust their…then they probably won’t bust their…

Group PolarizationGroup Polarization

The exaggeration through group The exaggeration through group discussion on initial tendencies in the discussion on initial tendencies in the thinking of group membersthinking of group members

For example:For example: Low prejudice groups can become less Low prejudice groups can become less

prejudiced and high prejudiced groups prejudiced and high prejudiced groups can become more prejudiced can become more prejudiced

GroupthinkGroupthink

Group decision-making that is not Group decision-making that is not optimal, sometimes disastrous, optimal, sometimes disastrous, because the group’s primary goal is because the group’s primary goal is consensus instead of accuracyconsensus instead of accuracy

Example:Example: U.S. Space Shuttle U.S. Space Shuttle ChallengerChallenger

explosionexplosion

CreditsCredits

Some pictures and slides in this presentation prepared by: Some pictures and slides in this presentation prepared by: http://www.rudypark.com/editorialcartoons/topics/USculture/980623conformity.gifhttp://www.lermanet.com/exit/milgram/conform.htm