Conformity and Obedience

• Obedience
• Conformity
  
  
• Conclusions

The man who would not push the button LINK - this is story by the volunteer who took part in Stanley Milgram's experiment, in his own words about what happened that day

 

Milgram (1963): Behavioral Study of Obedience

• Subjects: Males 20-50 years old
  
  
  
  • Experimenter = Authority
  • Subject = Teacher = Subordinate
  • Confederate = Learner = Victim

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Teacher has shock machine with 30 switches (15v to 450 v)
  
  
  
  
• Multiple-choice paired-associate learning procedure

  • Teacher punishes (shocks) learner for each error

  • Learner commits prearranged errors
  • Teacher is instructed to escalate punishment with each error

  

• IV: NONE
• DV: Level of shock at which teacher breaks off

Predicted Results

RESULTS: 65% obeyed fully

VARIATIONS:

• 1) Adult women 65%
• 2) Voice feedback 62.5%
• 3) Proximity (same room) 40%
• 4) Touch proximity 30%
• 5) Experimenter absent 22.5%
• 6) Bridgeport Office 48%
• 7) Group (others quit) 10%
• 8) Group (subsidiary role) 90.25%

Do these effects occur in "real life"?

Hofling et al. (1966)

• Nurses were telephoned by a doctor they didn't know.
• They were ordered to administer a nonprescribed drug in double the maximum dosage to a patient.
• 22 nurses were called.

Results: 21 out of 22 nurses (95.5%) followed the doctor's orders.


Bushman (1988)

• Woman searches for change for parking meter
• Another woman orders pedestrians to give the first woman a nickle.
• This second woman is dressed (IV):
  • In uniform
  • In a business suit
  • As a panhandler
• Results: More persons gave money if ordered by woman in uniform.

return to top of lecture

Conformity
Topics for Discussion:

• Informational Influence
• Normative Influence
• Costs of Nonconformity

return to top of lecture

Sherif (1937) A Study of Some Social Factors in Perception

• Used the AUTOKINETIC EFFECT: a stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move
  • Four session experiment:
    • 1) Judge how far the light appears to move when alone
    • 2) Judge in groups of three
    • 3) Judge in groups of three
    • 4) Judge alone

    

  
  

• Results: Group members modify their judgments and reach a normative consensus about how far the light appears to move. When separated into new groups, the new group members also adopt these earlier established norms.
  
  
• Conclusion: When it is unclear how to behave individuals look to others' behavior.
  
  • This conformity comtinued on for more than a dozen "generations"

  
  

• This is usually discussed as Informational influence: We conform to others' behavior because we believe they know more about the correct way to behave than we do.
• This type of conformity depends on individuals being uncertain of reality.

return above

2. Asch (1951) Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment

• Asch believed that people were only susceptible to social influence when the world was ambiguous. He tried to demonstrate this.

• Methods: 8 "Subjects" participate in a line judging task.

  • 7 of these are confederates
  • the real subject always sat in the 7th seat
  • On 12 out of 18 trials the confederates unanimously gave the incorrect answer.
  • DV: # of trials that agree with majority
  • IV: NONE

  

• RESULTS: Conformity on 37% of critical trials
  • 75% of subjects conformed at least once.

VARIATIONS

• 1) Size of group
  

• 2) One dissenter who is correct: 10% errors
  • One dissenter who is incorrect: 14% errors

  1) Private commitment helps (Deutsch & Gerard)
  
  4) Individual differences: Self-Esteem
  
  5) Group Importance: The more important the group, the greater the conformity

WHY do people conform in this situation?

• Normative influence: We conform to others because we want to be liked and accepted by them.

return to top of lecture

Schachter (1951). The Johnny Rocco Study

Students participated in groups concerning how to best treat a young juvenile delinquent (Johnny Rocco)

Three of the students were confederates who played the role of:

• the modal member (agreed w/ group majority)
• the slider (initially disagreed, then changed to agree)
• the deviate (disagreed w/ group majority)

The amount of time spent talking to each member and liking for each member was measured.

Results: S's spent the most time talking to the slider & deviate until it the slider changed and it was clear the deviate would not change. S's liked the conforming members best (particularly the slider). All S's disliked the deviate the most.



Not all normative influence comes from the presence of actual persons: Social norms exist. These are the rules a group has acceptable behaviors and beliefs.

"The results raise the possibility that ... American democratic society cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of http://www.lermanet.com/cos/motivate.html so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. If in this study an anonymous experimenter could substantially command adults to subdue a fifty-year-old man, and force on him painful [and potentially lethal] electric shocks against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects."

Dr. Stanley Milgram, American social psychologist, 1968, summarising his landmark series of experiments testing obedience to authority

return above

Summary and Conclusions

• 1) Conformity and obedience were much greater than anyone expected.
• 2) People don't really know how they will behave in many situations.
• 3) The situation is extremely powerful in determining people's behavior.
• 4) People's motives and desires determine much of how they behave.

return to the top of the lecture

Nota Bene: Why this page was webbed

This page was webbed, because this long time activist wished to understand this also, as I found that Scientology and the Third Reich have a great deal in common, so much so, that this writer believes that Scientology's founder L Ron Hubbard copied many of the same techniques used to build the Nazi mind control machinery. See the page Books Scared Them. I recently found that Mr.Milgram, in correspondence with Milton Erikson, said that he originally decided to do this study in order to understand how the atrocities of of Third Reich could come to pass.

Realted Stanley Milgram Links

Spiked Humor Video a dramatization of The Milgram Experiment [LINK]

Scientology Without End,by Tom Voltz about the relation of Milgram Experiment to Scientology