Conformity as a Type of Group Influence - Research Paper Example

?Conformity in Society, a Meta-analysis To fit in. To belong. To conform. To evade disapproval and to blend in. Conformity can be thought of as a type of group influence whereby beliefs and behaviors can be visibly changed in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group. This social surrender can occur in response to real or perceived pressure as needed to avoid group sanction. The source of this pressure typically being the mere physical presence of other people exerting an often unspoken, social normative pressure. Recent studies confirm findings from decades past: For the purpose of terminology, conformity can be said to indicate a preference for the majority position, encouraged by either the normative need to ‘fit in, to be liked’, or because of an accuracy assumption. A recent study by Cialdini and Goldstein has investigated the thought-processes underlying the vulnerability to outside influences. They have developed a theoretical model to define the underlying objectives towards compliance-seeking behaviors. The extent of external behavioral influence is considered on the basis of three hypothetical goals fundamental to rewarding human functioning: 1.) Develop accurate perceptions of reality and respond appropriately. It is vital to react to – and correctly interpret incoming information to secure social approval/support. A single inaccurate perception could yield highly unfavorable material consequences. Rarely is objective reality the only consideration; the individual must poll their own emotions to derive the most socially-prudent reaction. There may not be time for a precision judgment of all physical facts. (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) 2.) Goal of Affiliation. When we behave in a way that is sanctioned by the community, others will sanction us as well, and grant approval. To that end, we can use approval and positive cues to help ascertain the intimacy of our relationships with others. Adherence to social norms aids us in achieving affiliation-oriented goals. 3.) In addition, all of us must maintain meaningful social-ties, and to develop a sense of self-worth. The authors go on to define compliance/conformity behaviors operating at both the conscious, and unconscious level. Praise and complements, even those of only semi-genuine veracity will service the need to build self-worth, and explains the reasons why we are more apt to believe positive statements concerning ourselves. Outsiders can react with a more critical eye when their own personal esteem is not on the line. This need lies at the root of flattery. (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004) The study of social influences linking with these hypotheses can be traced to many seminal studies from decades, even centuries past, as study subjects attempt to reconcile their own perceptions against all external evidence. Studies have pitted the human brain against optical illusions in the case of Sherif, and against itself – or perhaps its own eyes in the landmark Asch experiments. (Sherif, 1969), (Asch, 1951) With our limited human perspectives, it is easy to assume that other individuals possess more, better, or rarefied information than we do. Perhaps something happened before you joined with this group; perhaps there is some secret, communicative process that has granted the others knowledge that you lack. (Not an invalid assumption for a psychological experiment.) Or perhaps, every other person in the group may simply be smarter than you. (Should the individual feel personal insecurity in that regard) For others, accuracy matters less than social identity, the need to belong within the context of a particular social role. (McLeod, 2007) For the investigator engaged in such analysis; it is also necessary to filter out', as much as it possible, artifacts of the testing itself - knowledge that a psychological test is occurring, and a conscious desire on the part of the participants to impact the results for perceived personal advantage; or in response to personal feelings about the psychologist. These and related questions have been grappled by the field of psychology since its 19th century origins. Many other experiments in psychology have investigated the pressure from the group, and how it relates to social conformity. Types of Conformity Researchers have posited various types of conformity, four different subspecies of the phenomenon: Normative/Informational, Internalization, and Compliance. (Mcleod, 2007) Normative Conformity Informational Conformity 1.) A surrender to group pressure due simply to the desire to fit in with the group. Such as with the aforementioned Asch Study. Here we have a case of the drive for meaningful social-ties, as described by Cialdini and Goldstein, taking precedence over any need to form an accurate view of reality. 2.) Conforming out of fear of rejection by the group; and thereby a sensitivity/insecurity concerning rejection. It is likely with this form of compliance that an individual may appear to accept the premise of the group for the purposes of public discourse, but privately reject their assertions. 3.) A person that feels lacking in information, and thus looks to the group for advice/guidance, and in case where the actual situation is ambiguous. Should the person be looking for guidance, there is a higher probability to accept the group’s premise as their own. Compliance Internalization 1.) Publicly adjusting behavior to fit in with the group while disagreeing privately, in order to express harmony and avoid discord, or social sanction. 2.) Publicly adjusting behavior to fit in with the group while agreeing internally as well. (Asch, 1952) Ingratiational Conformity (Non-Conformity) 1.) Where a person expresses conformity to impress or gain acceptance from others. Here the behavior is motivated more positively; the subject wants social rewards rather than fearing rejection. Here, group pressure is of minimal importance. “Sucking up”, to an authority figure, or person of great wealth, for instance. In this case, it is more likely that a subject can reject, or defy the norms of the group, towards the anticipation of greater rewards from some benefactor. (McLeod, 2007) The first formalized testing into the psychology of conformity was conducted in a 1932 experiment involving a glass bottle containing beans. (Jenness, 1932). Participants were asked individually for an estimate of how many beans the bottle contained. Jenness placed the group in a room with the bottle, upon which they were asked to arrive at a group estimate through discussion. Participants were told to visually calculate the number on their own, after the group was finished, to find to what extent their initial estimates had been adjusted based on conformity with the influence of the majority. Jenness later interviewed his subjects again, individually. His goal was to give each of them a chance to revise their original visual estimate/calculation, or simply report again their agreement with the group's estimate. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the individuals altered their report to be more aligned with the group estimate. (Jennes, 1932) Implicit, subtle majority pressure can influence the individual at or below the level of consciousness, as Ciadlini and Goldstein would theorize. And said group pressures can take the forms of debate-style persuasion, teasing, or bullying. Overt or covert, hostile and passive alike. Arguably, the most famous experiment in conformity was the line-judgment experiment by Solomon Asch (1951) The famous test asked participants to judge the length of a line on paper in comparison with other lines, and various common objects. All participants in the study except for one were actually in collusion with the researcher. The single, uninformed person was the real subject of the experiment. Initially, the entire group gave correct answers to the length/size comparisons presented to them, but eventually the secretly aligned participants began knowingly, and in coordination, giving clearly false results. For the control group, there was no pressure to conform to the incorrect estimate, and only one subject out of 35 ever gave a false answer. Asch hypothesized that a majority of individuals would not conform to information that was obviously absurd; however, when confronted by individuals (secretly in collusion) all asserting an incorrect answer, the true subjects actually gave incorrect responses on a large proportion of the questions (32%). Seventy-five percent of the participants gave at least one incorrect answer. Also of considerable interest is the Sherif Autokinetic Effect Experiment (1935). Sherif performed an experiment in order to determine the willingness of individuals to conform to group expectations under uncertain, ambiguous conditions. He used an optical illusion to project a spot of light onto a screen in a dark room producing an optical illusion. The spot could appear to move, even though in fact it remained still, the distance and lighting conditions combined to yield uncertainty concerning the actual position of the spot. Participants were then tested individually, and their estimates on the spots position, and the amount to which it had moved where then recorded. Next, subjects with widely varying estimates were placed in groups with those giving different numbers, and each participant was required to state out loud their guess concerning the movement of the spot, in centimeters. By grouping together those reporting outlying numbers with a plurality of subjects unlike them, in time the estimates began to normalize. The perceived differences in the motion of the spot that did not move eventually evened out when faced with the reports of peers. By grouping subjects together, Sherif found that an individual with an estimate greatly different than other around him or her was influenced to conform to the views of the others in his report. Sherif determined that all individuals would exhibit a preference for conformity over objective analysis, choosing to fit in with the crowd, often to the exclusion of what their own eyes told them. Although in this case, there was no ‘correct’ answer, as the entire study was founded upon an optical illusion. Adding credence to these above findings is the - "Three men make a tiger", fallacy - from ancient Chinese proverbial wisdom. In essence stating that a report of one person claiming to see a tiger in the marketplace of the capitol city is probably a lie; two saying it is cause for concern, but three men saying it means it is probably correct. This is also summarized as the ‘Argumentum Ad Populum’ fallacy, where the simple weight of numbers makes the absurd seem plausible – simply out of the desire to fit in. (About.com 2011) The lessons to take away from this are apparent; the majority of people can bend – or pretend to bend their own reality, in defiance of their senses in order to conform. This willingness to sublimate rationality is not limited to simple verbal acquiescence; the mind can instill doubt in virtually all forms of sensory data, in addition to our intellectual capacity to verify our senses. Conclusion The 21st century Cialdini study identifies three primary objectives in which an individual maximizes social advantage. These components are both goals and needs, but it is also worth expressing that group identity can allow the subject to fulfill all three goals concurrently. Modern subjects are likely to be mindful of these influences in part; and the most potent forces influencing individual behavior towards the interest of social goals are likely to be indirect; below the threshold of conscious awareness. (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004) , (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999) Conformity allows social animals to maximize their ability to receive support from the group; yet in this manner there is always the risk of the entire herd going off a cliff if no one has the courage to speak up, and speak their mind. Studies by Asch, Sherif, Cialdini & Goldstein bear out this trend in a majority of cases. In most of these studies, the needs for social-ties and acceptance overshadow our 21st century analysis also attributing the need for an accurate perception of reality as vital to mental health. But Conformity can aid survival on the individual level; in addition to the evasion of social sanction; it is certainly possible that other individuals will possess information that a single person will lack; and so a form of informational conformity could allow a person to benefit from the superior information possessed by others, without literally internalizing that information himself or herself. And this truth, paradoxically – is part of an accurate perception of reality. References Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. Am. Psychol. 54:462– 79 Cialdini, Robert B. Goldstein, Noah J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 55: 591-621 (Volume publication date February 2004) First posted online on July 11, 2003 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 Cline, Austin. (2011) Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Numbers) Appeals to Authority By Austin Cline, About.com Guide. Accessed 8/7/2011. http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/numbers.htm Mcleod, Saul. (2007). Conformity. Simply Psychology. Psychology Academic Articles for Students. Published 2007 Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969): Social Psychology (Int. Rev. Ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Read More