Conformity as Disorder - Essay Example

?Running head: INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGY Conformity as Disorder Solomon Asch’s experiments on conformity and ultimate conclusions provide an interesting and sometime disturbing clinical view of how humans pressured perceive themselves vis a vie their environment and others. Much of what Asch concludes through the experiments links directly to psychological disorders prevalent in studies conducted over time. Therapies suggested for such disorders and favored by given psychologists often differ. An analysis of Asch’s study, its results, and a discussion of disorders themselves and suggested therapies provide a crucial connection and insight into methods of assessment and treatment of behavior. Solomon Asch: Group Pressure and Conformity Social psychologist Solomon Asch’s 1951 study of the impact of group pressure on decisions is noted as one of the most important and conclusive. The conduct of the study was fairly simple. Ache showed students in groups of eight to ten--all of whom except one in each group had been coached beforehand to pick the wrong answer on twelve of the eighteen cards. Each card had a group of three bar lines on the right, and one bar line. Students were asked to pick one bar from a series of three on the right that best matched the one bar on the left. Most subjects were told to deliberately give the wrong answer. Asch arranged the questioning so that most wrong answers would be given before the test subject in the group made his or her decision. The results were significant and according to Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010): “50 and 80 percent…conformed with the false majority estimate…a third…yielded to the majority’s wrong judgments on half or more of the critical trials” (p. 550). The results prompted Asch, according to age-of-the sage.org (n.d) to conclude: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct" (par 7). What this says about our desire not to be different, but to conform with our peers is significant. But beyond that rather simple point may be other more complex psychological elements at work which according to Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) may indicate impulses at play beyond our simple “desire “to be liked, accepted and approved” (p. 549). For instance, Asch noted that the fewer people who gave wrong answers the fewer test subjects did the same, indicating a strong mistrust element in the views of the few versus those of the majority. As might be concluded, a decided lack of independence and confidence was clear when it came to one’s rational judgment over that of the pack. Considering the often incomprehensible election habits of individuals, this becomes particularly relevant in terms of electorate behavior. The 25 percent who always conformed was roughly equal to the same percentage who never conformed (Zimbardo and Gerrig, 2010) indicating a possible polar aspect to the behavior. On the positive side, it should be noted that significant change in most aspects of life come from the minority generally considered non-conformers. As Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) found, “The conflict between entrenched majority view and the dissonant minority perspective is an essential precondition of innovation…” ( p. 551). As evidenced in the recent film, “The Social Network,” Facebook creator, Marc Zuckerman’s insistence on thinking independently ultimately produced a multi-billion dollar empire. For the others who conform even in the face of obvious evidence that they should not conform, there may very well be serious psychological disorders underpinning the behavior. The major disorders according to Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) are categorized based their affect on the individual as follows: the individual experiences personal distress or dysfunction; behaves in ways that hinder goals and wellbeing or themselves or others; behaves in ways that are irrational or incomprehensible; behaves unpredictably from one situation to another; shows behavior that is statistically rare and violate social standards of what is acceptable; creates by their behavior feelings in others who may feel threatened or uncomfortable; violates social codes of moral and ideal behavior.(p. 453) Taking each disorder and applying them to Ashe’s conformity findings provides interesting asides that question whether an individual in a similar situation may fall into the “disorder” category or not. What may seem like a simple matter of poor self esteem that prompts them to go along with wrong answers despite all reason may actually indicate a serious psychological dysfunction. It is likely in the first category that the person who knowingly gives a wrong answer would experience stress in seeing themselves as being pressured into performing dysfunctionally. Should they see what they are doing as achieving the goal of “fitting in” with the norm, their wrong response then seems reasonable, suggesting that their “irrational” behavior in giving the wrong answer may for them be rational. The first three categories then may or may not be applicable or disturbing as severe psychological dysfunction. Erratic answers, however, present a different matter and suggest the individual may, as Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) suggest “a loss of control” (p. 453) that, because of the frustration produced, may lead to extreme and potentially destructive (violent) behavior. This behavior as “statistically rare” (Zimbardo and Gerrig 2010, p. 453), thus in the extreme, may be indication of deep psychological issues that in other situations could lead to self destructive behavior. The seemingly irrational answers of Asch’s subject may make others feel uncomfortable but hardly threatened. Violation of moral and ideals standards in Asch’s study obviously do not apply. He or she is hardly running naked through the town square shouting anti-American slogans! Nevertheless, treatment for such an individual as those studied by Asch may be productive in helping people who are overly and inappropriately compliant stand strong in situations involving peer pressure. The choice between Behavioral or Psychodynamic therapies may depend upon the severity and depth of the individual’s attachment to what Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) call “normative influence processes—wanting to be liked, accepted and approved by others” (p. 549). An evolutionary offshoot of psychoanalysis, psychodynamic therapy takes into account all of the influences on the individual. As Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) suggest, “not only intrapsychic but also troubled interpersonal relationships and…societal pressures”(p. 493). Departing from Freud’s focus on sexual stressors as the source of psychodysfunction, Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) explain the essence of psychodynamic therapy as a holistic treatment that takes into account the social and interpersonal environment of the patient along with the role of ego as it relates to self image. (p. 493) Psychodynamic therapy, as an evolution of psychoanalytic therapy, is a lengthy process. For individuals with conditions such as conformity problems or other conditions seriously self-destructive, a more direct approach such as behavior therapy would be in order. While psychodynamic analysis treats more deeply rooted causes, behavioral therapy looks at how people act, then treats the actions as negative with methods designed to change the behavior. While a psychodynamic therapist may delve into the environmental background of a subject and treat symptoms [behaviors] as products, the behaviorist suggests to the patient the negativity of their behavior and presents methods and options on how to behave differently in those situations. Generally methods, known as “counter condition” are divided into categories including Aversion, Desensitization and Exposure. In the case of Ashe’s subject, the psychodynamic therapist may uncover things in the subject’s past that lead to the behavior [dominating parents, siblings etc] and suggest ways that he or she might think differently. The behaviorist will suggest that the non-confronting behavior is in itself negative, using counter conditioning methods to change it. For instance, the patient who sees him or herself as weak for conforming may be encouraged to face the fear of ridicule by the group, stand their ground and give the answer they know to be correct--the idea being that once faced the first time successfully, subsequent confrontations with fears becomes easier. Tracing the behavior, the therapist then introduces into sessions the notion of growing confidence, showing how the modification of the subject’s behavior is producing the positive desired effect. The two methods—psychodynamic and behavioral-- can be viewed then as a two-step and one-step process respectively. The first would seek to find causes for, say, fear of flying buried in one’s background, then proceed to treat it; the second would take the phobia itself “by the throat” so to speak and teach the patient, through various methods including desensitization, exposure and aversion how to deal with the fear and overcome it. Conclusion Problems such as those uncovered by Asch in his study may seem slight in comparison to behaviors exhibited by some patients with serious, life altering behavioral issues. Nevertheless, from a simple wish to please and conform to behaviors including serious aggression, both assessment and immediate treatment of symptoms are of value to the individual for whom the problem causes varying degrees of social dysfunction. Reference Solomon Asch experiment (1958) A study of conformity. On: age-of-the-sage.org. Retrieved 20 March, 2011 from: http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html Zimbardo, P & Gerrig, R.J. (2010). Psychology and life, (19th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Read More