Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne
Opus: Research & Creativity at IPFW
2016 IPFW Student Research and Creative
Endeavor Symposium
IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor
Symposium
3-30-2016
Social Conformity to Moral Dilemmas
Danielle Parsons
Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne
Follow this and additional works at: http://opus.ipfw.edu/stu_symp2016
Recommended Citation
Parsons, Danielle, "Social Conformity to Moral Dilemmas" (2016). 2016 IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor Symposium.
Book 58.
http://opus.ipfw.edu/stu_symp2016/58
This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor Symposium at Opus: Research &
Creativity at IPFW. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2016 IPFW Student Research and Creative Endeavor Symposium by an authorized
administrator of Opus: Research & Creativity at IPFW. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Social Conformity to Moral Dilemmas
Danielle Parsons and Dr. Jay W. Jackson (Faculty Sponsor)
Indiana University—Purdue University Fort Wayne
BACKGROUND
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
RESULTS (cont.)
Human social behavior is often guided by moral judgments. A
classic metaphor for moral principles is the “moral compass”, a set
of personal principles that, if violated in response to social
pressure, implies a kind of moral weakness. However, studies in
social psychology have demonstrated the dramatic power that
conformity pressures can have on people’s judgments and
behaviors. The famous line-comparison studies by Asch (1956)
demonstrated the power of conformity even when making
completely unambiguous judgments. Few studies have examined
how such pressures influence moral judgments. We examined how
conformity pressures (giving public vs. private responses) affect
reactions to unambiguous moral dilemmas (dilemmas that the
vast majority of people, in general, agree on) and ambiguous moral
dilemmas (dilemmas that people tend to be split on). We expected
greater conformity to ambiguous moral dilemmas than
unambiguous ones, and predicted that perceived difficulty,
agreeableness, confidence, and desire-for-correctness would
moderate conformity effects.
The participant waited with two other “participants” (actually
accomplices). In response to the 10 unambiguous moral
dilemmas presented, the accomplices responded normatively to
four, violated an impermissible norm in response to three, and
violated a permissible norm in response to three. In response to
the two ambiguous items, the accomplices responded with high
permissibility to one and high impermissibility to the other.
Responses were made either privately on paper or publically. In
the public condition the participant gave his/her response last.
These conformity effects were significantly moderated by
confidence and perceived difficulty. Participants who expressed
greater confidence in their moral stances exhibited less conformity,
while those who perceived the dilemmas as more difficult exhibited
more conformity.
Moral Dilemma example question: You are at the wheel of a runaway trolley quickly
approaching a fork in the tracks. On the tracks extending to the left is a group of five
railway workmen. On the tracks extending to the right is a single railway workman. If
you do nothing the trolley will proceed to the left, causing the deaths of the five
workmen. The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch on
your dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of
the single workman. Is it appropriate for you to hit the switch in order to avoid the
deaths of the five workmen?
Figure 2. Public/Private
Condition x Unambiguous
Dilemma Type
Figure 1. Public/Private
Condition x Ambiguous
Dilemma Type
7
Highly
Permissible
7
6
6
Highly
Permissible
5
4.87
Impermissible
4
Permissible
3.62
3
3.24
5
5.1
Impermissible
4.7
4
Permissible
3.717
3.533
3
2
2
1
Highly
Impermissible
Participants’ mean permissibility ratings
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 60 undergraduate introductory psychology
students (34 female, 25 male, Mage= 20.467).
MATERIALS
Participants responded to 12 moral dilemmas using an Asch-like
paradigm. Each dilemma was read out loud by the experimenter
(e.g., trolley dilemma, crying baby dilemma). Of the 12 dilemmas,
10 were unambiguous. Responses were made using a 7-point scale
(highly impermissible to highly permissible). Participants then
completed a post-session questionnaire, which included some
measures of personality.
As expected, we obtained a significant public/private x dilemmatype interaction for the ambiguous dilemmas, F (1, 57) = 38.18,
p < .001. When expressed privately, responses to the items did
not differ (Ms = 3.62 and 3.24); but when expressed publically,
responses were significantly influenced by the accomplices’
judgments (M = 2.40 vs. 4.87, for impermissible and permissible
judgments, respectively). An equally significant conformity effect
was found with the unambiguous dilemmas, F (1, 57) = 37.25,
p < .001. In the private condition, participants responded
normatively (M= 3.717 and 4.700); but were significantly
influenced by the accomplices in the public condition (M= 5.100
and 3.533, for impermissible and permissible judgments,
respectively.
Participants’ mean permissibility ratings
METHODS
RESULTS
2.4
Private
Public
1
Highly
Impermissible
Private
Public
Table 1. Confidence as a predictor of overall levels of conformity
Level of Confidence
Low
Medium
High
Beta Coefficient (Conformity)
-.588
-.478
-.369
Table 2. Perceived Difficulty as a predictor of overall levels of conformity
Level of Difficulty
Low
Medium
High
Beta Coefficient (Conformity)
-.336
-.475
-.617
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate that responses to moral situations, even
those that are unambiguous, are significantly influenced by
conformity pressures. Despite the human tendency to believe that
moral standards are iron clad and unable to be swayed by outside
forces, this research shows that the opinions of strangers can greatly
influence a person’s judgment. Furthermore, this study provides
evidence that a conformity effect can occur with a simple two thirds
majority created by only two accomplices, rather than the usual
three or four. This may be unique to conformity in moral situations,
however, and requires further investigations. The effects of
conformity in moral situations are also moderated by confidence
and perceived difficulty. Given the pervasiveness of moral systems
and judgments in society, the implications of this study are
important and further research is warranted.