“Woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity” (Hoffer 1973 p33)
The strength of desire to conform is a personality trait whereby some people will try to conform to whatever group they are in at the time, whilst other non-conformists will go in the other direction, deliberately asserting their individuality by rejecting all but a very few sets of norms. Teenagers would be a good example, as they reject their parents, being non-conformists in the family, whilst desperately conforming to peer-group norms as they seek acceptance by the cliques and gangs of the schoolyard. Some groups are mutually exclusive, where the rules of one group are that you are not a member of specific other groups. Gangs and families are an example, as are political parties and different religions.
There are several variations of social norms. Injunctive norms are behaviours which are perceived as being approved of by other people. Descriptive norms are perceptions of how other people are actually behaving, whether or not these are approved of. Explicit norms are written or spoken openly. Implicit norms are not openly stated (but you find out when you transgress them). Subjective norms, expectations that valued others have about how we will behave. Personal Norms, standards we have about our own actions.
Following on from Jenness (1932), Sherif (1935) conducted an experiment called the auto kinetic effect. Participants sat in a darkened room and stare at a pinpoint of light that appears to move. They are asked to estimate the distance it moves individually at first, there were differences between there suggested movement estimates. They were then told estimates of two other individuals who took part, under this influence they converged on similar figures. Since the movement is only apparent the correct answer is it doesn’t, however Sherif’s participants were not aware of this at the time. Within both experiments, social norms emerge as a core factor, and clearly swayed the individual to harmonize with the rest, due to informational conformity, this usually occurs when there is a lack of knowledge as an individual and they look for group guidance.
Asch (1951) notably disagreed with Sherif’s findings and questioned how ambiguous the task was, as there was no right or wrong answers, which in conclusion would make it difficult to judge group conformity. Asch decided to devise his own pilot study, a simple take that conducted experiments in individuals deciding which three comparison lines of different length matched a standard line. As shown below is the basic formula Solomon Asch used:
Asch tested 36 participants individually on 20 slightly different variations of the task shown above. Only 3 mistakes were made out of 720 trials over a succession of experiments from 1951, 1955 and 1956; a tiny percentage of individual differed with their answers. Asch then adapted the procedure so he could better study the effect of conformity and the differing variables within; he named this the Asch paradigm. This allowed him to plant accomplices, who were informed that one participant would be completely ignorant of them being his confederates. The unknowing test subject was placed with 7-9 other individuals, who were required to answer out loud the wrong answer, influencing the naïve participant to conform. In a total of 12 trials, on 11 occasions the naïve individual concurs with the rest of the group. Asch unearthed that 32 per cent was the overall figure of naïve participants who agreed with the incorrect minority answer. When questioned, the naïve individuals said they wanted to be liked by everyone and not outcast, not to upset the experimenter or appear different to the rest of the group, some even believed there eyesight genuinely got worse during the experiment. Asch had his critics:
“These theories have no basis in fact; any facts about the mind used in their support would have necessitated the use of such theories. In effect, the psychological world so dear to the heart of many social psychologists is a social construction, and the findings used to justify statements about this world are only valid insofar as one remains within the theoretical (and metatheoretical) paradigms of the field. Research findings don't have any meaning until they are interpreted, and these interpretations are not demanded by the findings themselves. They result from a process of negotiating meaning within the community.” (Gergen 1999 p123)
According to Leyens & Cornielle (1999), the study took a more individualistic approach, and focused purely on the naive participant’s independence, rather than the group’s independence. Fiske (2004) agrees, Asch’s research is “stripped down” social influence, without the everyday interactionist within a group environment.
Does the minority or majority influence, Moscovici & Faucheux (1972) argue that Asch-type experiments can suggest ideas may be accepted, but also provide evidence to maintain the status quo, Moscovici believes majority rule is misleading. If groups followed the majority decision all the time, wherein the individual accepts the majority, it must be right, or influences from a social structure dilutee a conforming group, then where would innovation come from. However Spencer & Perrin (1998) inject a differing stance, suggesting Asch’s experiments overemphasize the influence of a majority, to suppress the minority individuals, in this case the naive candidate. Leading to various other group processes, risky shift theory which is more a means tested experiment which Sherif covered, or group polarisation which Moscovici & Zacalloni (1969) studied. And so:
“...thus, majorities can be converted by minorities, but majority individuals do not admit it to others, and perhaps not to themselves, thereby avoiding public identification with the unpopular minority position.” (Gross 2005 p449)
Moscovici (1969) brought about a similar Asch-type experiment where he attempted to see if influences of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority. Individuals were placed into groups of 4 participants, and 2 confederates. They were all shown 36 slides each, and asked to say the colour out loud. There were 2 groups in the experiment, and the stooges answered green every time. Within the second group the confederates were inconsistent and answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. His findings showed 8.42% of the trials, participants agreed with the minority, and answered green. Overall 32% of the participants agreed at least once. The study suggested that minorities can indeed exert an effect over the opinion of a majority. Not to the same degree as majority influence, but the fact that almost a third of people agreed at least once is significant. However, this also leaves two thirds who never agreed. In a follow up experiment, Moscovici demonstrated that consistency was the key factor in , by instructing the stooges to be inconsistent. The effect fell off sharply.
Solomon Asch study shows normative conformity, a yielding to group pressure as the individual person wants to fit in with the group, or the person is afraid of rejection by them. However in practice the experiment didn’t go far enough to explain group conformity, Crutchfield (1954) criticised Asch’s experiment, since only one person could be tested at a time. He conducted a test of his own, with five individuals at a time, sitting in open cubicles, but unable to see their neighbours, so privately carried out. He used several stimuli, pictures and questions, which were projected onto a wall. A question was posed, asking army officers whether they would make good leaders, 37% said no, however more significantly, when presented without reference to who was answering, none agreed with the question. His study showed variation to Asch’s statistics, showing 30% of the group conformed.
It is suggested that Asch’s studies were a reflection of the times by several psychologists; the first Larsen (1974) proceeded with the same study as Asch’s and found a substantial amount of American students didn’t conform, perhaps highlighting the climate of opinion within America during the 1970s. However in a later study in 1979, Larsen et al, discovered results very similar to Asch’s, to answer this fluctuation in both their findings, you only have to look at the evolution of the times and what was occurring within America. In the 1950’s Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed to have unearthed an anti-American plot by Communist insurgence, who had infiltrated various governmental and social facilities. The Senators words echoed:
“I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
(Miller 1977 p43)
In 1970s the Vietnam War was proceeding, and many American lives had been lost to the war, producing many anti-war groups. A political mine field for social order and unrest within the country, pro actionist groups had been formed and society had become fragmented and disillusioned.
Six years on from Larsen’s original study, Perrin & Spencer (1981) determined that conformity was very low in Britain among university students during a period of self expression and tolerance. As Perrin et al commented “The Asch findings are clearly an indicator of the prevailing culture.” Alluring to the differing findings, due to differences within society of the era, Britain was in political turmoil, and many race riots have occurred. Brown (1985) sums up the potential for differential within conducting studies on group conformity over the decades that:
“... experimenters may also have changed over time. Perhaps their expectations of the amount of conformity that will occur in an experiment are unwittingly conveyed to the participants, who respond accordingly.” (Gross 2005 p447)
Bond & Smith (1998) brought all the various studies conducted in Britain and America, which used Asch’s paradigm theory together by using a special statistical technique called meta-analysis. They compared Britain and American studies with those carried out in smaller countries, unearthing that representation of many countries from western European countries USA and UK is individualist, and many countries in Oceania, Africa and Asia are collectivist. Individualist cultures correspond to defined personal choices and achievements. In hindsight collectivist cultures is defined by collective groups, such as religion, family etc.
There is clear indication of a variation in all psychological studies, this could be due to the country, or area the individual, or groups of people originate from. This could influence the results of tests, but also could influence the person who is conducting the test on how it is formed, as some studies have shown. All experiments show there is a element of conformism, where swayed by the majority or the minority, different tests and assessments garner varying results. Cultural origin, impacts upon the psychological tests, and have been highlighted by several of the psychologist’s experimental assessments including Asch, Spencer & Perrin, and also Bond & Smith. Given the modern times differing faculties to interact with each other, like the internet, mobile phone, gaming, there is a huge variation in ways to conform, and the more traditional approaches do not necessarily correspond to the world in the 21st century. An important social reformer and philosopher commented on conformity and summons up how fickle we the human animal can be:
“Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road”
(Voltaire 2008 p216)
Where are all the modern day social reformers, psychologists and philosophers today, can they conform to a globalised society.
Bibliography
Aronson, E. (2008) p234 The Social Animal, New York: Worth/Freeman
Gross R (2005) p442, 447, 449 Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour, London: Hodder & Arnold
Crutchfield R (1948) p506 Individual in Society, McGraw-Hill: California
Gergen K J (1999) p123 Social Psychology as Social Construction: The Emerging Vision, New York: Sage
Hoffer E (1973) p33 Reflections on Human Conditions, Harper & Row: New York
Miller D (1977) p43 The Fifties: The Way We Really Were, Deustche Wirtshaft AG: Berlin
Ridley M (1996) p186 The Origins of Virtue, London: Viking
Voltaire (2008) p216 Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary, San Diego: Nuvision Publications
