Psychology Essay

2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 1/11

Figure 11.15 These line segm ents illustrate the judgm ent

task in Asch's conform ity study. W hich line on the right— a,

b, or c— is the sam e length as line x on the left?

M o d u le 1 1 .4 : C o n f o r m it y , C o m p lia n c e , a n d O b e d ie n c e

In this section, w e discuss additional w ays in w hich people inﬂuence others. The topics of conform ity, social inﬂuence, obedience, and group

processes dem onstrate the pow er of the social situation to change our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. W e begin this section w ith a

discussion of a fam ous social psychology experim ent that dem onstrated how susceptible hum ans are to outside social pressures.

C o n fo rm ity

Solom on Asch conducted several experim ents in the 1950s to determ ine how people are affected by the thoughts and behaviors of other

people. In one study, a group of participants w as show n a series of printed line segm ents of different lengths: a, b, and c (Figure 11.15).

Participants w ere then show n a fourth line segm ent: x. They w ere asked to identify w hich line segm ent from the ﬁrst group (a, b, or c) m ost

closely resem bled the fourth line segm ent in length.

Each group of participants had only one true, naïve subject. The rem aining m em bers of the

group w ere confederates of the researcher. A confederate is a person w ho is aw are of the

experim ent and w orks for the researcher. Confederates are used to m anipulate social

situations as part of the research design, and the true, naïve participants believe that

confederates are, like them , uninform ed participants in the experim ent. In Asch's study, the

confederates identiﬁed a line segm ent that w as obviously shorter than the target line— a

w rong answ er. The naïve participant then had to identify aloud the line segm ent that best

m atched the target line segm ent.

H ow often do you think the true participant aligned w ith the confederates' response? That

is, how often do you think the group inﬂuenced the participant, and the participant gave

the w rong answ er? Asch (1955) found that 76% of participants conform ed to group

pressure at least once by indicating the incorrect line. Conform ity is the change in a

person's behavior to go along w ith the group, even if he does not agree w ith the group. The

Asch effect is the inﬂuence of the group m ajority on an individual's judgm ent. W hy w ould

people give the w rong answ er? W hat factors w ould increase or decrease som eone giving in or conform ing to group pressure?

W hat factors m ake a person m ore likely to yield to group pressure? Research show s that the size of the m ajority, the presence of another

dissenter, and the public or relatively private nature of responses are key inﬂuences on conform ity.

Print This Page 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 2/11

Figure 11.16 Voting for governm ent oﬃ cials in the United

States is private to reduce the pressure of conform ity.

(credit: Nicole Klauss)

The size of the m ajority: The greater the num ber of people in the m ajority, the m ore likely an individual w ill conform . There is, how ever,

an upper lim it: a point w here adding m ore m em bers does not increase conform ity. In Asch's study, conform ity increased w ith the num ber

of people in the m ajority— up to seven individuals. At num bers beyond seven, conform ity leveled off and decreased slightly.

The presence of another dissenter: If there is at least one dissenter, conform ity rates drop to near zero.

The public or private nature of the responses: W hen responses are m ade publicly (in front of others), conform ity is m ore likely; how ever,

w hen responses are m ade privately (e.g., w riting dow n the response), conform ity is less likely.

The ﬁnding that conform ity is m ore likely to occur w hen responses are public than w hen

they are private is the reason governm ent elections require voting in secret, so w e are not

coerced by others (Figure 11.16). The Asch effect can be easily seen in children w hen they

have to publicly vote for som ething. For exam ple, if the teacher asks w hether the children

w ould rather have extra recess, no hom ew ork, or candy, once a few children vote, the rest

w ill com ply and go w ith the m ajority. In a different classroom , the m ajority m ight vote

differently, and m ost of the children w ould com ply w ith that m ajority.

W hen som eone's vote changes if it is m ade in public versus in private, this is know n as

com pliance, w hich can be a form of conform ity. Com pliance is going along w ith a request

or dem and, even if you do not agree w ith the request. In Asch's studies, the participants

com plied by giving the w rong answ ers, but privately did not accept that the obvious w rong

answ ers w ere correct.

N ow that you have learned about the Asch line experim ents, w hy do you think the

participants conform ed? The correct answ er to the line segm ent question w as obvious, and

it w as an easy task. Researchers have categorized the m otivation to conform into tw o types: norm ative social inﬂuence and inform ational social

inﬂuence.

In norm ative social inﬂuence, people conform to the group norm to ﬁt in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group.

In inform ational social inﬂuence, people conform because they believe the group is com petent and has the correct inform ation,

particularly w hen the task or situation is am biguous.

W hat type of social inﬂuence w as operating in the Asch conform ity studies? Since the line judgm ent task w as unam biguous, participants did not

need to rely on the group for inform ation. Instead, participants com plied to ﬁt in and avoid ridicule, an instance of norm ative social inﬂuence.

An exam ple of inform ational social inﬂuence m ay be w hat to do in an em ergency situation. Im agine that you are in a m ovie theater w atching a

ﬁlm and w hat seem s to be sm oke com es in the theater from under the em ergency exit door. You are not certain that it is sm oke— it m ight be a

special effect for the m ovie, such as a fog m achine. W hen you are uncertain you w ill tend to look at the behavior of others in the theater. If

other people show concern and get up to leave, you are likely to do the sam e. H ow ever, if others seem unconcerned, you are likely to stay put 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 3/11

Figure 11.17 People in crowds tend to take cues from others and act

accordingly. (a) An audience is listening to a lecture and people are

relatively quiet, still, and attentive to the speaker on the stage. (b) An

audience is at a rock concert where people are dancing, singing, and

possibly engaging in activities like crowd surﬁng. (credit a: m odiﬁcation of

work by M att Brown; credit b: m odiﬁcation of work by Christian Holm ér)

and continue w atching the m ovie (Figure 11.17).

Lin k to Le a rn in g

H ow w ould you have behaved if you w ere a participant in Asch's study? M any students say they w ould not conform , that the

study is outdated, and that people now adays are m ore independent. To som e extent this m ay be true. Research suggests

that overall rates of conform ity m ay have reduced since the tim e of Asch's research. Furtherm ore, efforts to replicate Asch's

study have m ade it clear that m any factors determ ine how likely it is that som eone w ill dem onstrate conform ity to the

group. These factors include the participant's age, gender, and socio-cultural background (Bond & Sm ith, 1996; Larsen, 1990;

W alker & Andrade, 1996).

W atch the video below to see a replication of the Asch experim ent. 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 4/11

conformity

O b e d ie n c e

Conform ity is one effect of the inﬂuence of others on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Another form of social inﬂuence is obedience to

authority. O bedience is the change of an individual's behavior to com ply w ith a dem and by an authority ﬁgure. People often com ply w ith the

request because they are concerned about a consequence if they do not com ply. To dem onstrate this phenom enon, w e review another classic

social psychology experim ent.

Stanley M ilgram w as a social psychology professor at Yale w ho w as inﬂuenced by the trial of Adolf Eichm ann, a N azi w ar crim inal. Eichm ann's

defense for the atrocities he com m itted w as that he w as "just follow ing orders." M ilgram (1963) w anted to test the validity of this defense, so he

designed an experim ent and initially recruited 40 m en for his experim ent. The volunteer participants w ere led to believe that they w ere

participating in a study to im prove learning and m em ory. The participants w ere told that they w ere to teach other students (learners) correct

answ ers to a series of test item s. The participants w ere show n how to use a device that they w ere told delivered electric shocks of different

intensities to the learners. The participants w ere told to shock the learners if they gave a w rong answ er to a test item — that the shock w ould

help them to learn. The participants gave (or believed they gave) the learners shocks, w hich increased in 15-volt increm ents, all the w ay up to

450 volts. The participants did not know that the learners w ere confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks. 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 5/11

In response to a string of incorrect answ ers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them . The confederate

learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even com plained of heart trouble. Yet, w hen the researcher told the

participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the m axim um voltage and to the point that the

learner becam e unresponsive (Figure 11.18). W hat m akes som eone obey authority to the point of potentially causing serious harm to another

person?

Figure 11.18 The M ilgram experim ent showed the surprising degree to which people obey authority. Two

out of three (65% ) participants continued to adm inister shocks to an unresponsive learner.

Several variations of the original M ilgram experim ent w ere conducted to test the boundaries of obedience. W hen certain features of the

situation w ere changed, participants w ere less likely to continue to deliver shocks. For exam ple, w hen the setting of the experim ent w as m oved

to an oﬃ ce building, the percentage of participants w ho delivered the highest shock dropped to 48% . W hen the learner w as in the sam e room

as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40% . W hen the teachers' and learners' hands w ere touching, the highest shock rate dropped

to 30% . W hen the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23% . These variations show that w hen the hum anity of the person

being shocked w as increased, obedience decreased. Sim ilarly, w hen the authority of the experim enter decreased, so did obedience.

This case is still very applicable today. W hat does a person do if an authority ﬁgure orders som ething done? W hat if the person believes it is

incorrect, or w orse, unethical? In a study by M artin and Bull (2008), m idw ives privately ﬁlled out a questionnaire regarding best practices and 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 6/11

expectations in delivering a baby. Then, a m ore senior m idw ife and supervisor asked the junior m idw ives to do som ething they had previously

stated they w ere opposed to. M ost of the junior m idw ives w ere obedient to authority, going against their ow n beliefs.

G ro u p th in k

W hen in group settings, w e are often inﬂuenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. W hether it is due to norm ative or

inform ational social inﬂuence, groups have pow er to inﬂuence individuals. Another phenom enon of group conform ity is groupthink. G roupthink

is the m odiﬁcation of the opinions of m em bers of a group to align w ith w hat they believe is the group consensus. In group situations, the group

often takes action that individuals w ould not perform outside the group setting because groups m ake m ore extrem e decisions than individuals

do. M oreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of thought. This elim ination of diverse opinions contributes to faulty decision by the

group.

C o n n e ct th e C o n ce p ts

G roupthink in the U .S. G overnm ent

There have been several instances of groupthink in the U .S. governm ent. O ne exam ple occurred w hen the U nited States led

a sm all coalition of nations to invade Iraq in M arch 2003. This invasion occurred because a sm all group of advisors and

form er President G eorge W . Bush w ere convinced that Iraq represented a signiﬁcant terrorism threat w ith a large stockpile

of w eapons of m ass destruction at its disposal. Although som e of these individuals m ay have had som e doubts about the

credibility of the inform ation available to them at the tim e, in the end, the group arrived at a consensus that Iraq had

w eapons of m ass destruction and represented a signiﬁcant threat to national security.

It later cam e to light that Iraq did not have w eapons of m ass destruction, but not until the invasion w as w ell underw ay. As a

result, 6,000 Am erican soldiers w ere killed and m any m ore civilians died. H ow did the Bush adm inistration arrive at their

conclusions? W atch the video below of Colin Pow ell discussing the inform ation he had, 10 years after his fam ous U nited

N ations speech: 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 7/11

Colin P owell r egr ets Ir aq war intelligence

D o you see evidence of groupthink?

W hy does groupthink occur? There are several causes of groupthink, w hich m akes it preventable. W hen the group is highly cohesive, or has a

strong sense of connection, m aintaining group harm ony m ay becom e m ore im portant to the group than m aking sound decisions. If the group

leader is directive and m akes his opinions know n, this m ay discourage group m em bers from disagreeing w ith the leader. If the group is isolated

from hearing alternative or new view points, groupthink m ay be m ore likely.

H ow do you know w hen groupthink is occurring? There are several sym ptom s of groupthink including the follow ing:

Perceiving the group as invulnerable or invincible— believing it can do no w rong.

Believing the group is m orally correct.

Self-censorship by group m em bers, such as w ithholding inform ation to avoid disrupting the group consensus.

The quashing of dissenting group m em bers' opinions.

The shielding of the group leader from dissenting view s.

Perceiving an illusion of unanim ity am ong group m em bers.

H olding stereotypes or negative attitudes tow ard the out-group or others' w ith differing view points. 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 8/11

Figure 11.19 The attention of the crowd can m otivate a

skilled athlete. (credit: Tom m y Gilligan/USM A)

G iven the causes and sym ptom s of groupthink, how can it be avoided? There are several strategies that can im prove group decision m aking

including seeking outside opinions, voting in private, having the leader w ithhold position statem ents until all group m em bers have voiced their

view s, conducting research on all view points, w eighing the costs and beneﬁts of all options, and developing a contingency plan.

G ro u p P o la riz a tio n

Another phenom enon that occurs w ithin group settings is group polarization. G roup polarization is the strengthening of an original group

attitude after the discussion of view s w ithin a group. That is, if a group initially favors a view point, after discussion the group consensus is likely

a stronger endorsem ent of the view point. Conversely, if the group w as initially opposed to a view point, group discussion w ould likely lead to

stronger opposition. G roup polarization explains m any actions taken by groups that w ould not be undertaken by individuals. An everyday

exam ple is a group's discussion of how attractive som eone is. D oes your opinion change if you ﬁnd som eone attractive, but your friends do not

agree? If your friends vociferously agree, m ight you then ﬁnd this person even m ore attractive?

S o c ia l F a c ilita tio n

N ot all intergroup interactions lead to the negative outcom es w e have described.

Som etim es being in a group situation can im prove perform ance. Social facilitation occurs

w hen an individual perform s better w hen an audience is w atching than w hen the individual

perform s the behavior alone. This typically occurs w hen people are perform ing a task for

w hich they are skilled. Can you think of an exam ple in w hich having an audience could

im prove perform ance? O ne com m on exam ple is sports. Skilled basketball players w ill be

m ore likely to m ake a free throw basket w hen surrounded by a cheering audience than

w hen playing alone in the gym (Figure 11.19). H ow ever, there are instances w hen even

skilled athletes can have diﬃ culty under pressure. For exam ple, if an athlete is less skilled

or nervous about m aking a free throw , having an audience m ay actually hinder rather than

help.

S o c ia l L o a fin g

Another w ay in w hich a group presence can affect our perform ance is social loaﬁng. Social loaﬁng is the exertion of less effort by a person

w orking together w ith a group. Social loaﬁng occurs w hen our individual perform ance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus,

group perform ance declines on easy tasks. Essentially individual group m em bers loaf and let other group m em bers pick up the slack. Because

each individual's efforts cannot be evaluated, individuals becom e less m otivated to perform w ell. For exam ple, consider a group of people

cooperating to clean litter from the roadside. Som e people w ill exert a great am ount of effort, w hile others w ill exert little effort. Yet the entire

job gets done, and it m ay not be obvious w ho w orked hard and w ho didn't. 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 9/11

Interestingly, the opposite of social loaﬁng occurs w hen the task is com plex and diﬃ cult. Rem em ber the previous discussion of choking under

pressure? This happens w hen you perform a diﬃ cult task and your individual perform ance can be evaluated. In a group setting, such as the

student w ork group, if your individual perform ance cannot be evaluated, there is less pressure for you to do w ell, and thus less anxiety or

physiological arousal. This puts you in a relaxed state in w hich you can perform your best, if you choose. If the task is a diﬃ cult one, m any

people feel m otivated and believe that their group needs their input to do w ell on a challenging project. 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 10/1 1

Directions: M atch the type of social influence with its description by clicking on a description listed on the left

and dragging it to the appropriate spot.

GET KEYBOARD TIPS

RESET ALL QUESTIONS

C h e ck Y o u r K n o w le d g e

TYPE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Groupthink

Social facilitation

Normative social influence

Social loafing

Obedience

Compliance

Conformity

Group polarization

DESCRIPTIONChanging your behavior to go along with the group

even if you do not agree with the group Conformity to a group norm to fit in, feel good, and

be accepted by the group Strengthening of the original group attitude after

discussing views within a group Exertion of less ef fort by a person working in a

group because individual performance cannot be

evaluated separately from the group, thus causing

performance decline on easy tasks Group members modify their opinions to match what

they believe is the group consensus Changing your behavior to please an authority

figure or to avoid aversive consequences Going along with a request or demand Improved performance when an audience is

watching versus when the individual performs the

behavior alone 2017/7/18 PSY101 - Module 1 1.4

https://www .riolearn.or g/content/psy/psy101/PSY101_INTER_0000_v8/lessons/module1 1-04.shtml 11/11

M odule 11.3 M odule 11.5