Unit 4.3: Psychology of Social Situations

Key Features:

• Changing behavior to fit in with the group
• Can be explicit (direct pressure) or implicit (unspoken norms)
• Not necessarily bad — helps societies function smoothly
• But can lead to harmful outcomes when group norms are destructive

The Experiment:

• Participants shown lines and asked which comparison line matched the standard line
• Answer was obvious (correct answer clear to everyone)
• Real participant seated with 6-8 confederates (actors posing as participants)
• Confederates deliberately gave wrong answer on 12 of 18 trials
• Researchers measured whether real participant conformed to incorrect majority

Results:

• 75% of participants conformed at least once (gave wrong answer to match group)
• 37% average conformity rate across all critical trials
• When alone, participants made errors less than 1% of the time
• Participants knew the correct answer but went along with the group

Factors Affecting Conformity:

• Group size: Conformity increases up to 3-4 people, then levels off
• Unanimity: One dissenter dramatically reduces conformity (breaks unanimity)
• Status: Higher status group members elicit more conformity
• Public response: More conformity when answering publicly vs. privately
• Culture: Collectivist cultures show higher conformity than individualist

The Setup:

• Participants told they were in a study on learning and punishment
• Assigned role of "teacher" (real participant) and "learner" (confederate)
• Teacher instructed to deliver electric shocks for wrong answers
• Shock levels increased from 15 volts to 450 volts (labeled "XXX - Danger")
• Learner (actor) screamed, complained about heart condition, then went silent
• Experimenter (authority) insisted: "Please continue" or "The experiment requires that you continue"
• No actual shocks delivered — learner was acting

Results:

• 65% of participants went to the maximum 450 volts
• 100% went to at least 300 volts (labeled "Intense Shock")
• Participants showed extreme stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter)
• Yet most continued when authority insisted
• Predicted only 1-3% would go to maximum — actual result shocked researchers

Factors That Increase Obedience:

• Proximity of authority: Authority figure present in room (obedience higher)
• Legitimacy of authority: Prestigious institution (Yale University)
• Institutional support: Authority backed by respected organization
• Distance from victim: Can't see/hear victim → higher obedience
• Gradual escalation: Small shocks first, then increase incrementally

Factors That Decrease Obedience:

• Proximity to victim: Touching victim → obedience dropped to 30%
• Distance from authority: Authority gives orders by phone → 21% obedience
• Presence of dissenter: Another "teacher" refuses → dramatically reduces obedience
• Lower authority legitimacy: Conducted in rundown office building → 48% obedience

The Pattern:

• Easy/mastered tasks: Presence of others enhances performance
• Difficult/new tasks: Presence of others impairs performance
• Arousal strengthens dominant (most likely) response
• For easy tasks, dominant response is correct → better performance
• For hard tasks, dominant response is incorrect → worse performance

Examples:

• Expert athlete performs better in front of crowd
• Beginner athlete chokes under pressure of audience
• Skilled pianist plays better in recital; novice plays worse

Why It Happens:

• Diffusion of responsibility — "others will pick up the slack"
• Individual effort not identifiable/evaluated
• Feeling dispensable to group outcome
• Free-rider problem — benefit without contributing fully

Examples:

Group project where some members contribute less because they know others will do the work. Tug-of-war where individuals pull less hard in a team than they would alone. Classic study: people clapping/shouting louder when alone than in groups.

Conditions That Promote It:

• Anonymity (masks, uniforms, crowds)
• Large group size
• Arousal and sensory overload
• Diminished personal responsibility
• Alcohol or drugs

Examples:

• Mob violence and rioting
• Online trolling and cyberbullying (anonymity of internet)
• Vandalism by groups in masks
• Halloween mischief when costumed

Symptoms of Groupthink:

• Illusion of invulnerability: Overconfidence, excessive optimism
• Self-censorship: Members withhold dissenting views
• Pressure on dissenters: Members who question are pressured to conform
• Illusion of unanimity: Silence viewed as agreement
• Mindguards: Some members protect group from contradictory information

Consequences:

• Poor decision-making
• Failure to consider alternatives
• Ignoring expert warnings
• Catastrophic outcomes

Examples: Bay of Pigs invasion, Challenger disaster, corporate scandals where boards ignored warning signs

How It Works:

• Group starts with slight tendency in one direction
• Discussion exposes members to persuasive arguments supporting that direction
• Members compare themselves and shift toward more extreme position to stand out
• Result: Group ends up more extreme than average of individual starting positions

Examples:

• Jury slightly leaning guilty becomes more certain of guilt after deliberation
• Online echo chambers radicalize political views
• Business team cautious about risk becomes even more risk-averse after discussion

Kitty Genovese Case (1964):

Widely publicized murder in New York where woman was attacked for over 30 minutes. Initial reports (later disputed) claimed 38 witnesses heard/saw attack but didn't intervene or call police. Sparked research into why people don't help.

Darley & Latané Research:

• Staged emergencies with varying numbers of bystanders
• Found inverse relationship: more bystanders = less likely to help
• When alone, 70% helped. With 4 others present, only 31% helped
• Delay in helping also increased with more bystanders

Two Main Explanations:

When Are People More Likely to Help?

• When alone or with few others (no diffusion of responsibility)
• When they've witnessed others helping (modeling prosocial behavior)
• When in a good mood
• When they feel empathy for the victim
• When victim is similar to them
• When not in a hurry (Good Samaritan study — seminarians rushing didn't help)
• When situation is clearly an emergency

The Setup:

• College students randomly assigned to be "guards" or "prisoners"
• Mock prison created in Stanford psychology building basement
• Planned for 2 weeks
• Prisoners arrested at home by real police, stripped, deloused, given numbers
• Guards given uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and authority

What Happened:

• Guards quickly became abusive and sadistic
• Prisoners became passive, depressed, and accepting of abuse
• Both groups internalized their roles
• One prisoner had to be released after 36 hours (breakdown)
• Study stopped after only 6 days due to guards' cruelty

Significance & Criticisms:

Showed how powerfully situations and roles shape behavior. However, criticized for lack of scientific rigor, researcher interference (Zimbardo acted as superintendent, encouraging harsh treatment), selection bias, and ethical violations. Replication attempts have failed or been problematic.