Conforming to Social Pressures
How do people conform to social pressures? Will they go along with other’s opinions, or will they stick to their guns and trust their own judgments? To determine the effect of socials pressure on decision making, an experiment was performed to test the hypothesis; If a person is presented with visual information in a group setting and asked questions about their perception of what they see, will they truthfully respond if others in the group unanimously choose the wrong answer? A study titled “A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority”, Solomon E. Asch designed an experiment to test the power of social forces to understand the extent of influence they have on psychological function. (Asch)
The experiment was set up by gathering seven to nine individuals in a classroom setting to answer questions about the length of one line on a paper compared to three other lines. The lines were numbered and the participants had to call out the number of the line that they perceived to match the single line on the paper with only one of the lines equaling the single line. Only one of the individuals in the group was actually being tested, the other six to eight individuals were instructed prior to the experiment to give the wrong answer. The experiment contained eighteen different examples for the group to compare. The one “critical subject”, the one person who was pitted against the masses, was always in the minority in picking the correct line. The control group was instructed to act passively to the critical subject’s responses and not act surprised at whatever choice they made. The entire experiment was conducted at three different colleges and consisted of random samplings of the student populat...
... middle of paper ...
...ed. It is also very hard for most people to go against the majority because doing this, in most situations, causes a person to stand out and be the subject of attention where all eyes are on them.
Although Asch’s experiment cannot be considered the most reliable, the idea opened the door for many to investigate the idea of conformity and how it applies to social pressure. Perception is changed in many different situations that can be tied to conforming to what a majority says. Children are influenced in their decision making because they are concerned about what their friends think or do. Drug usage and other risky behaviors can also be attributed to conforming to how a group thinks or acts. Witnesses in court cases or even at crime scenes will also sometimes conform their thinking to deal with the pressures put on them to “see things” a certain way.
Conformity is defined as the occurrence of people yielding to social pressures as a result of pressure from a group of their peers; when faced by the pressure to conform, people will alter their behaviour and actions to fit the norm demonstrated by their peers (Lilienfield et al., 2012). Conformity is studied so that is can be understood and used in society to facilitate positive outcomes, and help avoid situations where peoples’ predisposition to conform leads to negative consequences (Lilienfield et al., 2012). By understanding conformity and other social processes society as a whole is able to understand themselves better and motivates them to work on improving as a whole (Lilienfield et al., 2012).
Conformity can often seem like the best path to take in a situation. Going along with everyone else will cause less conflict for the group as a whole. Unfortunately conforming simply to protect other people's feelings can lead to powerful internal conflicts if a person does not fully agree with the situation. Ruth from A Raisin in the Sun, Langston from "Salvation," and Mama from "Everyday Use," all felt internal conflicts resulting from conformity.
A person can stand up for their beliefs against another person, but as more people criticize those beliefs, it becomes much harder to stand up for what one believes in and much easier to give in and agree with the majority. When a person begins to feel condemned and cornered against a group of people, they tend to conform their actions in order to align them with their new identity. Gladwell states about the Stanford Prison Experiment, “the guards, some who had previously identified themselves as pacifists, fell quickly into the role of hard-bitten disciplinarians. The first night they woke up the prisoners at two in the morning and made them do push-ups, line up against the wall, and perform other arbitrary tasks.” (158). The subjects’ identities fell into align with respect to their immediate environment. With no control over their true identities, their actions as a group must coincide with each other’s. The situational pressure is automatically exerted onto each member of the group; if one member does not act in accordance with the group’s actions, one will most likely face criticism from the other members. The conscious awareness of these consequences will keep most members of the situation in align with their newly molded identities. External pressures play a very similar role, without the presence and involvement of groups of people. Like peer pressures, external influences lure us to change our actions according to the expectations of those certain outer influences. Davidson states, “…given that our system of education presumes college preparation is the ideal, even in environments where most kids are not going on to college” (59). Even if a student does not have the ambition to attend college, they are still forced to meet the expectations of those who plan to attend college. If they do not meet those expectations, they will be
While society preaches the negatives of conformity, science has proven that the brain is hard-wired to follow the group. Asch was the pioneering researcher in this discovery. The following experiment and its ensuing results stunned everyone. Asch’s experiment stated:
So far, conformity has been discussed in terms of group identification and social roles. However, individuals also tend to change prior beliefs to seek group acceptance. Asch (1951) investigated the effect of group pressure on conformity by asking participants to make a line judgment with seven confederates that gave the same obviously incorrect answer. Yet, 37% of participants conformed by giving the incorrect majority answer, whereas in the absence of group pressure, less than 1% of participants conformed (Asch, 1951). There are implications on normative influence as individuals, despite knowing the majority opinion was incorrect, may conform to avoid social punishment (Breckler et al., 2005). However, Turner and colleagues (1987) argued
In 1951, Solomon Asch carried out several experiments on conformity. The aim of these studies was to investigate conformity in a group environment situation. The purpose of these experiments was to see if an individual would be swayed by public pressure to go along with the incorrect answer. Asch believed that conformity reflects on relatively rational process in which people are pressured to change their behaviour. Asch designed experiments to measure the pressure of a group situation upon an individual judgment. Asch wanted to prove that conformity can really play a big role in disbelieving our own senses.
As well as for having the people around them respond to a question differently than their answer. These situations can have a person feeling doubtful of themselves and feeling like they have to change their answers to conform to the majority of people’s responses. Asch informs his readers on an experiment concentrated on the influence of group pressures upon individuals, that he conducted himself. His experiment involved a group of young men, all in college who gathered together to compare the lengths of lines. All subjects were displayed two cards, one with a black single standard line and another card which had three lines with various lengths, and every individual had to answer which line was the same as on the other card (598). He explains that if one other person answers a question differently than the dissenter, it causes the dissenter to doubt and rethink about the choice they made. Asch describes that when a person contradicts the subjects answer, the subject was influenced a little with the confrontation, but continued to answer independently, and when it was two people contradicting the subject’s answer, the subject “accepted the wrong answer 13.6 per cent of the time.” But when it was more than two people, “the subjects’ errors jumped to 31.8 per cent” (Asch 600). He says “The dissenter becomes more and more worried and hesitant as the disagreement continues in succeeding trials; he may
The astute reader may notice that this review does not include any papers that did not find a false consensus effect. The reason for this is not that this paper is not representative of the literature, but rather, that it is. The uniformity of the literature suggests that the phenomenon is fairly common. Some interesting arguments as to why this is are motivational or cognitive in nature. The motivational premise is based in the idea that people are motivated to believe that they have a place in their social environment. This argument is a based in self-justification, in that if many people share a given belief or behavior, it makes it easier to justify that this attitude or behavior is either right, or not as bad as it might seem.
It often leads to people adjusting responses to stimuli just because they believe that if everyone else has the same response they must have it too. This is shown in "Asch Experiment" after McLeod explained how the dot of light never moved, he mentioned, "The participants are then asked to estimate how far the dot of light moves. These estimates are made out loud, and with repeated trials, each group of three converges on an estimate. The main finding of the study was that groups found their own "social norm" of perception." (McLeod 2) This shows that when placed in an environment where some people have a different opinion than others, the popular opinion takes over and everyone's opinion becomes uniform because people doubt themselves when they are alone on an opinion, leading to conformity. People in environments like this should try to keep their own opinions as to prevent the spread of conformity when uniqueness is
Solomon Asch’s experiment in “Opinions and Social Pressure” studied a subject’s ability to yield to social pressure when placed within a group of strangers. His research helped illustrate how groups encourage conformity. During a typical experiment, members of the group were asked by the experimenter to claim two obvious mismatched lines were identical. The single individual who was not privy to this information was the focal point of the experiment. Twelve out of eighteen times the unsuspecting individual went along with the majority, dispelling his beliefs in favor of the opinions of the group.
The most basic concept in social psychology is conformity. Conformity is the idea that behaviour or a belief is changed in order to follow, or conform, to what is considered the “norm.” One of the oldest experiments to support this notion was conducted in 1935 by Muzafer Sherif (Song, Ma, Wu, Li, 2012 p. 1366). There are two different types of
The second motive that explains why people conform according to Deutsch and Gerard, (1955) is based on informational social influence. According to Festinger, (1950, 1954 in Hogg & Vaughan 2007) this type of influence is associated with uncertainty. Here individuals are uncertain and lack knowledge as to how to behave in certain situations. Festinger referred to this as social comparison in which individuals are not fully confident about their beliefs, attitudes and opinions and therefore yield to majority in order to be correct. This occurs particularly under ambiguous conditions and is clearly demonstrated in Asch’s (1956 in Hogg and Vaughan 2007) and Sherif’s (1936 in Hogg and Vaughan 2007) studies in which participants converged on similar answers particularly when the tasks became extremely difficult for them to be able to rely on their own judgments (in Bailey et al.
As stated above, conformity changes an individual 's belief and behaviour to match the groups, and while obedience often requires punishment and reward other studies suggest that "an individual...confronted with an authority recognized as legitimate, will behave in the direction of the expectations of this authority" (Pascual et al., 2013) without long-term effect on behaviour or beliefs. Sherif (as cited by Myers, 2014) found in his studies on norm formation that the group norm lasted even a year after the initial experiments, while Milgram (as cited by Myers, 2014) found physical proximity of the authority figure was a predictor of obedience in that obedience went down the further the authority figure physically was. Though conformity and obedience are not completely different, conformity obedience can be interchangeable when the hierarchy is seen as a group with which individuals can identify. Reicher, Haslam and Smith (2012) argue that Milgram 's (1965, 1974) famous obedience experiment isn 't simply blind obedience but individuals identifying with the figure of authority and conforming to expected norms. In some cases when individuals felt the authority figure 's beliefs were dissimilar to their own they immediately withdrew from
Elliot Aronson (2012) provides a definition of conformity, two social psychological processes that underlie a conformity and cited examples of reasons why people conform in the book, The Social Animal. Aronson (2012) defines a conformity as “a change in a person’s behavior or opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people” (p.19). In accordance with Aronson’s (2012) definition of conformity, people do conform owing to the social influence, which are two main social psychological processes: belonging and getting information.
There are many social influences which have an effect or lasting effect on the behavior of an individual. Within many group scenarios, conformity and obedience play a large role in how people tend to think and behave, especially if they get carried away. Obedience refers to compliance to an authority figure or with others in a group. On the other hand, conformity refers to an individual changing their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors to accommodate with the standards of a group or their peers. Both of which are pure examples of how human behavior changes based on certain social situations. Obedience and conformity both occur during situations of social facilitation, social loafing, and groupthink.