Only $2.99/month

Social Psychology -

Terms in this set (17)

The main point of this study is that the answers are easy to get right in the absence of others. They are about conformity in which conformity in groups > in one. There is informational influence (maybe I am wrong) and people who are afraid of sounding stupid. People conform because of normative influences, because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant, and because of informational influence, because they believe others have the right answers and are confused about what the right answer is. Asch pit what we see with what others think. Incorrect responses in Asch's study were much more prevalent when it was a unanimous group decision. In sum, conformity is reduced when: "At least One Other Person Gives the Right Answer"; and when "Subjects Are Asked To Express Taste Not Opinion"; "Subjects (and others) Can Understand Why Others Say What They Say (even though it does not match the reality as the subjects see it)."
Textbook - Asch arranged another condition in which real subjects were led to believe that they were late: the confederates were already at work. They were told that because they were late, they couldn't really be part of the group; therefore, they wouldn't give their judgments aloud. But they could take part in the experiment anyway. They were to write down everybody else's answers and also record the answer they would have given had they had an opportunity to speak. They were to pass on their own answers (and the record they made of the other subjects' answers directly to the experimenter. These subjects, then, needn't have feared being laughed at by the other subjects, since the other subjects wouldn't know their answers. If these subjects gave the wrong answers, it was because they were genuinely confused rather than afraid of looking like fools to the others. On the other hand, if they gave the right answers, the conformity we saw in the original experiment was probably the result of a fear of looking foolish. Subjects in this condition gave more wrong answers than subjects tested alone, but fewer wrong answers than those who had to answer aloud. This suggests that to some degree, subjects gave wrong answers for both reasons: because they were confused, and because they were afraid of looking foolish before the other subjects. Both informational and normative pressure work to produce conformity: both are mechanisms of social influence.
Kitty Geouvese was murdered in 1964, but at least 38 law-abiding citizens in the apartment did not call the police. This is because of pluralistic ignorance, the tendency to look at others to help us decide if an ambiguous and potentially attention-demanding event ought to be classified as a true emergency. People tend to remain inactive while deciding whether or not an event is a true emergency so people have a tendency to present oneself as calm, composed, and rational (and takes behavior at face value). We observe others and take it as the current way to behave. This also explains why people think their peers drink more than they do in college. With the diffusion of responsibility, through watching others, people think, "Oh, it's not a real emergency," or if they do think it is a real emergency, they think, "Oh, someone probably called." There is a feedback loop in which observing nothing makes us do nothing. Pluralistic ignorance is more similar to Asch's nformational influence, because they believe others have the right answers and are confused about what the right answer is. There is ambiguity involved. Pluralistic ignorance is a state in which people mistaken each other's beliefs by misinterpreting their behavior, and then use the misinterpretation as evidence for what must be true (mistakenly inferring from a person's beliefs and a resulting false consensus). Diffusion of responsibility relates to the problem that everyone watching may have believed that someone was responsible to act, but everyone may also have believed that someone else was the someone who was responsible. Nobody felt uniquely responsible to help.
Milgram had special prods, like, "Please continue," and "The experiment must go on." Other special ones included how silence could be counted as wrong answers; shocks are painful, but not dangerous; whether he likes it or not, he must continue; "I take full responsibility". Remember, there was no white lab coat--it was gray because he wanted a pure platonic kind of authority--someone authoritative through role, not through knowledge. Mr. McDonough was changed to Mr. Wallace because Wallace is ethnically more neutral. Milgram wanted pure platonic obedience. Experiment 5 was the crucial study in which he moved to establish a new baseline. He used experiment two (heard, but not seen--voice feedback) plus the heart condition. At 150 V, the learner would refuse to go on. People who did not stop at 180V always went to the end (180 V = a crucial point) of 32 shocks! Also, not experiment 15, in which two authorities gave contrasting views led to a 0% obedience rate. (Incorrect answer = shock; increase by 15volts). 1.Please continue,
2.The experiment requires you to continue, please go on.
3.It is essential that you continue.
4.You have no choice, you must continue.

Slippery slop from gradual shock to higher levels. Moral obligations to continue! Textbook: gradual escalation of of the voltage; the experimenter's posture as the interpreter of the objective requirements of the situation; the embarrassment it would cause the subjects to tell the experimenter off; and the distance the subject is removed from the victim.
People said that it hurt, but it was air. The shock was due to a person thinking that there was an equal chance of being teacher or learner--both agreed to take this risk. For experiments in which the obedience rate is 0%, we realize that the autonomy of the learner does not matter, as we see in the case in which the "manly" learners ask to be shocked. Milgram's experiment 5, the one in the video, was replicated, and they are almost always replicable in other countries! Humans are horrible, or they follow authority because they know what to do--evolution. This might relate to diffusion of responsibility? People started giving shocks because they are there for scientific progress and money, and because of diffusion of responsibility and other psychological influences.

Experimenter:
1.Please continue,
2.The experiment requires you to continue, please go on.
3.It is essential that you continue.
4.You have no choice, you must continue.
If the subject voices a concern about an injury :
"Although the shocks may be painful, they are not dangerous."
If the subject points out that "the learner" doesn't want to go on:
"Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he had learnt all the word pairs correctly. So please go on."
If the subject expresses a concern about PERSONAL responsibility:
"I take full responsibility."
Learner:
Starts banging on the wall (Remote condition)
Screams of pain and protest (Voice feedback condition)
Subject:
Looks uncertainly at the experimenter
Hesitates
Attempts to disengage

textbook: Obedience was not reduced when the victim claimed he had a heart condition; when the experiment was done for a market research company in a rundown office in Bridgeport instead of Yale; and the victim entered the experiment with an explicit commitment that the experimenter would let him out when he insisted. Legitimacy, fairness, and responsibility were not held up.
People tortured the puppy (Male: 7/13 or 54% Female 13/13 or 100 %). To test this possibility, Sheridan and King decided to repeat Milgram's experiment, introducing one significant difference. Instead of using an actor, they would use an actual victim who would really get shocked. Obviously they couldn't use a human for this purpose, so they used the next best thing — a cute, fluffy puppy.Sheridan and King told their subjects — volunteers from an undergraduate psychology course — that the puppy was being trained to distinguish between a flickering and a steady light. It had to stand either to the right or the left depending on the cue from the light. If the animal failed to stand in the correct place, the subjects had to press a switch to shock it. As in the Milgram experiment, the shock level increased 15 volts for every wrong answer.
But unlike the Milgram experiment, the puppy really was getting zapped.As the voltage increased, the puppy first barked, then jumped up and down, and finally started howling with pain. The volunteers were horrified. They paced back and forth, hyperventilated, and gestured with their hands to show the puppy where to stand. Many openly wept. Yet the majority of them, twenty out of twenty-six, kept pushing the shock button right up to the maximum voltage.

Intriguingly, the six students who refused to go on were all men. All thirteen women who participated in the experiment obeyed right up until the end.
With Hofling's nurse/overdose study, how many would listen to orders from an unknown doctor to push forth an unknown drug on an unknown patient? The drug was also a larger dose and had negative side effects. 21/22 did it! Yet, 0/21 nurses said that they would not do it and all gave four valid reasons. 1-Prescription given over the phone, which was in violation of hospital policy. 2-Medication was unauthorized. 3-Dosage was obviously and dangerously excessive. 4-Physician was unknown to the nurse.