Interesting. Agree with the first experiment results. But when the subject had to write it down, i am surprised that he chose to tell the truth. That means that in the first experiment, what stopped him from telling the truth did not include concern for what the instruction would think of him if he deviated.
It suggests that the subject is more concerned with his peers, that is, who he thinks are his equals in a social situation. As long as they do not know what he chose, he doesn't feel that pressure.
Yeah, thats what i meant. His decision was based solely on peer pressure. Would it have changed if the instructor had more power? Say, if there was a prize for the guy who scored highest?
Yes, perhaps. But I think that would dilute the power of this experiment. The beauty of this experiment is that it was absolutely inconsequential that you needed to provide the right or wrong answer. It wouldn't "matter" one bit if you disagreed with your peers. Yet, the subject goes along with his/her peers. This experiment is powerful because it identifies default behaviour.
Relentless warrior against windmills, champion of pedantic non sequiturs, deconstructively critical when provoked, in doubt, and at all other times. Subject has so many edges that he may fleetingly be mistaken to be well-rounded by a casual observer. If said illusion of well-roundedness is not visible at first, a small (or large) amount of squinting may do the trick.
4 comments:
Interesting. Agree with the first experiment results. But when the subject had to write it down, i am surprised that he chose to tell the truth. That means that in the first experiment, what stopped him from telling the truth did not include concern for what the instruction would think of him if he deviated.
It suggests that the subject is more concerned with his peers, that is, who he thinks are his equals in a social situation. As long as they do not know what he chose, he doesn't feel that pressure.
Yeah, thats what i meant. His decision was based solely on peer pressure. Would it have changed if the instructor had more power? Say, if there was a prize for the guy who scored highest?
Yes, perhaps. But I think that would dilute the power of this experiment. The beauty of this experiment is that it was absolutely inconsequential that you needed to provide the right or wrong answer. It wouldn't "matter" one bit if you disagreed with your peers. Yet, the subject goes along with his/her peers. This experiment is powerful because it identifies default behaviour.
Post a Comment