SCRIPT

INTRODUCTION

1. Put a finger down kung nabudol ka na sa shopee this pandemic?

2. Put a finger down kung nagka-time nang init na init o inis na inis ka na sa
facemask mo pero suot mo pa rin kasi kailangan.
3. Put a finger down kung takot ka pa talagang mag face-to-face classes pero
pumasok ka na because you believe na mas effective ito instead of online
classes?

What did you get? Sino rito ang naka three fingers down? Did you know that all of these
are actually examples of conformity and that all of these are normal? It’s because us
humans experience changes in the way we act or think depending on different
influences to make us “fit in”.

Kaya naman yung pagsunod sa trend by buying yung nakita mong product sa shopee,
pagsunod sa Covid-19 protocols by wearing your facemask, o kahit yung pagpasok sa
face-to-face classes, we do these things to conform. Pero hindi lang dito nagtatapos
yung extent ng Conformity, and that is what we hope to discuss in this video for you to
get a clearer understanding on:

● What is conformity?
● What are the classic conformity and obedience studies?
● What predicts conformity?
● Why conform?
● Who conforms?
● Do we ever want to be different?

WHAT IS CONFORMITY?
(From the examples a while ago, we sort of got an idea on what conformity is. Now, let
us delve into the formal definition of the term.)

Conformity – change in behavior or belief as the result of real (physical presence) or

imagined (social norms/expectations) group pressure—in order to fit in with the group. It
is not just acting as other people act but also being affected by how they act; acting or
thinking differently from the way you should act or think if you were alone.
Two varieties of conformity:

1. Acceptance – acting and believing in accord with social pressure. It occurs

when you genuinely believe in what the group has persuaded you to do—that
the group’s actions are right.
o Example: You exercise because you believe exercising is healthy.
2. Compliance – conforming to an expectation or implied or explicit request
while privately disagreeing. It is often done to reap a reward or avoid a
punishment. In other words, it is an insincere and outward conformity.
o Example: You follow your school’s dress code even though you dislike
doing so.
o Obedience – (subset of compliance) complying with a direct order or
command. It is doing something you wouldn’t do otherwise because
someone else says you need to.
§ Example – Your father tells you to clean up your room and you do
even if you don’t want to.

*Compliance and acceptance even differ in the brain: the shorter-lived memories
that underlie public compliance have a different neural basis than the memories that
underlie longer-term private acceptance. Brain activity after obedience captures its
nonvoluntary nature, leading to the most cognitive arousal.

Transition:
Before moving on to the next part? After knowing the basic definition of conformity and
its types, do you think you can say whether conformity is good or bad? Let’s find out as
we discuss:

(5minutes)

WHAT ARE THE CLASSIC CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE STUDIES?

“Classic” studies are those formed by simplifying and simulating important features of
everyday social influence into laboratory microcultures or miniature social worlds.

I. Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation

1. Muzafer Sherif (1935, 1937) wondered whether it was possible to observe the
emergence of a social norm in the laboratory. He wanted to isolate and then
experiment with norm formation to figure out how people come to agree on
something. He took advantage of autokinetic phenomenon—apparent movement
 of a stationary point of light in the dark. He let participants observe the light in a
setting where it is impossible to properly judge its movement but still asked them
how much they think the light moved from its original position. He repeated this in
several experiments with the same group of participants and with each
procedure, their individual answers changed before coming to an individual
estimate. In a following experiment, he put the participants together in the same
room to perform the same procedure only this time, they have to come up with an
answer with the knowledge of other participants’ guesses. Without fail, the
participants’ responses changed markedly becoming closer to each other and
thus, forming a group norm. Nonetheless, the norm was false since the light
remained stationary the whole experiment. (Does this suggest acceptance or
compliance?)

Participants look to others (who know more / better) for guidance (i.e. adopt the group
norm). They want to do the right thing, but may lack the appropriate information. This is
known as informational conformity. (we’ll be tackling later on)

2. Robert Jacobs and Donald Campbell (1961) studied the transmission of false
beliefs by also using autokinetic phenomenon (in connection with a culture’s
seeming power to perpetuate false beliefs). They had a confederate give an
inflated estimate (false norm) on the first generation or batch of participants on
how the light had moved and they then observed that this inflated illusion
although diminishing, persisted among four more generations. From this they
learned that views of people are not theirs alone; accepting an idea which turns
out to be false only implies that you’ve experienced it firsthand—compromise
between personal ideas and of those around them.

3. This method was used by Sherif and other researchers to answer questions
about people’s suggestibility (or mimicry)—state of being inclined to accept and
act on the suggestion of others. Suggestibility can also be observed in everyday
life: people coughing, laughing, or yawning sometimes influence others to do the
same.

4. In 2005, Robert Provine did a study on what facial features trigger contagious
yawns and found out that although yawning is an automatic behavior, we yawn
when others yawn simply because neurons mirror or mimic witnessed actions
(biological mechanism). He also found that just thinking about yawning usually
produce yawns.
 5. Another example is contagious laughing especially observed during comedy
shows or sitcoms. (Friends, How I Met Your Mother, or Big Bang Theory) These
capitalize on suggestibility by adding laugh tracks which work well when people
presume that the laughing audience is composed of people similar to them.

6. This phenomenon is actually called mood linkage—being around happy people

help others feel happier according to Peter Torrerdell and his colleagues.
Moreover, people within the same social network or system tend to share positive
and negative moods.

7. The chameleon effect or mimicking someone else’s behavior is another form of

social contagion proposed by Tanya Chartrand and John Bargh (1999). It is
likely an automatic behavior, done without any conscious intention to conform,
and apparently develops in early childhood. Studies show that when shown
different facial expressions, people unconsciously made the same expressions.
Behavior synchronizing also includes speaking—mirroring the grammar people
read and hear.

8. To sum it up, because our behavior influences our attitudes and emotions, our
natural mimicry inclines us to feel what others feel. In 2004, Rick van Barren
and his colleagues suggested that mimicry helps people look more helpful and
likeable (generally elicits liking except when echoing others’ negative ex-
pressions, such as anger).

9. Mass hysteria is mimicry that occurs on a large scale. An example of this is

violent acts getting media coverage. In a study of mass shootings, Sherry Towers
and her colleagues (2015) found that such incidents were contagious: shootings
causing at least 4 deaths led to a two-week period of increased gun violence. In
light of such contagions, some psychologists have called for media outlets to
stop identifying the perpetrators of shootings. If the shooters don’t get media
attention, the thinking goes, fewer people will be tempted to repeat their violent
acts.

II. Asch’s Studies of Group Pressure

Solomon Asch conducted a study on perceptual judgements wherein participants were
asked to compare a set of three lines with a standard line and to see which among the
three matched the standard line (this procedure seemed easy enough). In a controlled
setting of answering alone, participants answered correctly 99% of the time. But when
presented with other participants’ consecutive wrong answers, others start to question
their own perception—whether the others were incorrect or they were. Although some
people never conformed by giving the wrong answer, 75% did so at least once while
37% of the overall answers were conforming—trusting of others. This experiment
showed that most people tell the truth even when others do not.

Moreover, those belonging in the more individualistic countries were less willing to
conform to a group judgement as compared to people from more collectivistic countries,
those in more recently settled frontier states less than non-frontier states, and women
more than men—results you’d expect if culture and gender shaped conformity, with
recent, individualistic cultures and maleness promoting the autonomy of the self, and
established, collectivistic cultures and femaleness encouraging fitting in with the group.

Both the Sherif and Asch results are startling because they involved no obvious
pressure to conform—there were no rewards for “team play,” no punishments for
individuality— just the increased arousal of knowing you’re standing out.

If people are that conforming in response to such minimal pressure, how compliant will
they be if they are directly coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram wondered.

III. Milgram’s Obedience Studies

Stanley Milgram (1965, 1974) studied what happens when the demands of authority
clash with the demands of conscience. It is considered one of the most famous and/or
infamous studies in scientific psychology—perhaps more than any other empirical
contributions in the history of social science.

He set up a situation in which people assigned as “teachers” were ordered to administer

increasing levels of electric shock (15 to 450 volts with 15-volt increments) to someone
who was having difficulty learning a series of words for whom was called the learner.
With each error, an experimenter would order the teacher to shock the learner at a level
higher on the shock generator. At 120 volts the learner would shout that the shocks
were painful while at 150 volts, he would cry out that he refuses to go on any further. At
300 and 315 volts, he screams his refusal to answer while at 330, he falls silent. The
experimenter then states that the nonresponses should be treated as wrong answers
and that the teacher should go on. When asked how far they would go, psychiatrists,
students, and adults all answered that they would not go over 135 volts; none expected
to go beyond 300 volts. However, when the experiment was done, nearly two-thirds of
the participants fully complied and progressed all the way to 450 volts—similar to what
the Nazi soldiers did. (Shocking right? Excuse the pun.) Those who stopped usually did
so at 150 volts when the learner’s protests became more compelling. In fact, they
argued back and forth with the experimenter over several rounds and said that the did
have a choice about whether to continue. Fortunately, the learner did not actually
receive any shock.

In 2009, Jerry Burger replicated Milgram’s study though only up to the 150-volt point.
He found out that 70% of the participants still obeyed—less than Milgram’s result of
84%. This pointed out that cultural change toward more individualism might have
reduced obedience but far from eliminating it. Moreover, Burger noted four features of
Milgram’s study design:

● the “slippery slope” of small requests that escalate into large ones
● the framing of shock-giving as the social norm for the situation
● the opportunity to deny responsibility
● the limited time to reflect on the decision

The Ethics of Milgram’s Studies

The obedience of his subjects disturbed Milgram while the procedures he used
disturbed many other psychologists. Even though the learner did not actually get
shocked in the experiment, some critics said Milgram did to his participants (the
teachers) what they assumed they were doing to the their victims; he stressed them
against their will. Three reasons why the study was unethical:

1. Deception of participants
● inadequately informed about the premises of the experiment.
● stressed against their will.
○ Milgram argued that deception was necessary in order to get
desired outcomes.
○ 83% were happy about the experience and 1% regretted the
experience.

2. Protection of Participants
● self-concepts may have been altered.
● experienced severe psychological distress which could lead to trauma or
other psychological impairment.
○ Milgram argued that these effects were short termed therefore it
was ethical.

3. Right to withdrawal
● participants were free to withdraw regardless of payment.
● used four (4) verbal prods that discouraged withdrawal:
○ Please continue.
 ○ The experiment requires you to continue.
○ It is absolutely essential that you continue.
○ You have no other choice; you must go on.

What Breeds Obedience?

1. The Victim’s Distance
● distance and relationship with learners are related to degree of
compliance
○ unknown and unseen = greatest obedience and least compassion.
○ unknown and seen = only 40% complied.
○ known and seen = only 15% complied.
■ Example Being cruel to someone on social media as
opposed to when confronting them face-to-face.
■ It is easier to abuse someone who is distant and
depersonalized.

2. Closeness and Legitimacy of the Authority

● physical presence of experimenter affects obedience
○ command in person = compliance increased
○ command by telephone = only 21% complied (some lied and said
they were obeying)
● authority must also be legitimate
○ command by assistant = less compliant
○ significantly obedient when they identified with the researcher or
scientific community he represents (believes they are making a
contribution)
■ In some situations, under aged teenagers are often more
inclined to engage in different acts of delinquency (drinking
alcohol, smoking cigarettes, vandalism, bullying, etc.) when
in the absence of a higher authority parent/teacher.

3. Institutional Authority
● authorities backed by reputable institutions wield social power.
○ study under Yale = 65% obedience rate
○ study under Bridgeport = 48% obedience rate
■ Example: Choosing to go attend a school partially because
of its credentials/reputation (relating to having a great
future)--without hard work and dedication a school would just
be a title.
4. Liberating Effects of Group Influence
● recognizes constructive attribute of conformity.
● Milgram captured liberating effect by placing a teacher with two defiant
confederates (90% conformed with the confederates and liberated
themselves)
■ Example: Following a person with a proactive voice and
similar ideals makes you feel liberated to voice your own
social and political views.