Posts tagged ‘conformity’
Social Psychology – Conformity
Answers the Question
What causes us to go along with others’ views rather than stand strong and resist the pressure to conform?
How it Began
Solomon Asch set out to study social influences and how social forces affect a person’s opinions and attitudes when he began his conformity study in the 1950’s. After studying the works of Jean Martin Charcot, and subsequent psychologists, Asch noted that participants in these past studies often changed their differing opinions to those of the majorities, when confronted with opposing views. The conformity study that he subsequently designed tests whether or not one can change someone’s judgment of a situation without changing their knowledge or assumptions about the situation.
Asch argued that conformity can best be studied by seeing if people agree or disagree with others who give an obviously wrong answer on tasks with an obvious and unambiguous answer. In his original 1951 study, Asch devised 20 slightly different line judgement tasks. On these tasks,participants have to say which of the 3 lines labelled A, B, and C is the same length as the line to the left of them.
Asch conducted a pilot study to ensure that the tasks actually did have an obvious and unambiguous solution. In the pilot study, he tested 36 participants one at a time on each of the 20 tasks. So, with 36 people each doing 20 tasks, a total of 720 judgements were made. Asch found a wrong answer was given only 3 times. Therefore, participants got the answer right 717/720 times (99.6%), and this showed that the tasks were very easy and did have one obviously correct answer and two obviously incorrect answers.
Asch then carried out the study itself. He wanted to see how much conformity male students at the university he worked at would show. Some of the participants (Ps) in the pilot study were asked if they would act as stooges (or confederates). Asch told them that they would be doing the tasks again, but this time in a group, with each person saying out loud their answers. The stooges were told that they would be seated around a table, and that there would be one other person (called the naïve participant) who was completely unaware that they were stooges, and that the study was about conformity.
Asch told the stooges that he would be acting as the experimenter, and that they would be seated around a table in such a way that the naïve participant would be the last but one to answer.
The stooges were also told that there would be a total of 18 trials on which they would be asked to do the line judgement tasks. Of these, 6 would be neutral trials, and the stooges were told to all give the correct answer. The other 12 trials would be critical trials, and the stooges were told that they should unanimously give a wrong answer (i.e. they would all give the same wrong answer).Asch informed the stooges that he would give a ‘secret signal’ when he wanted them to give a unanimously wrong answer. The critical trials and neutral trials were mixed up so that there was less chance of the naïve participant suspecting that the set-up wasn’t what it appeared to be.
On average, participants conformed on 3.84 out of the 12 trials, which is where the figure of 32% conformity comes from. Given these results, Asch concluded that even on a task which has an obvious and unambiguous answer, a unanimous numerical majority can influence the behaviour of a numerical minority.
Key Terminology
Conformity – conformity can be defined as ‘yielding to group pressure’, and for this reason it is also referred to as majority influence.
Social Comparison Theory – We determine our own social and personal worth based on how we stack up against others. As a result, we are constantly making self and other evaluations across a variety of domains (for example, attractiveness, wealth, intelligence, and success). Most of us have the social skills and impulse control to keep our envy and social comparisons quiet but our true feelings may come out in subtle ways.
Normative Influences – The influence of other people that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them. This often leads to public compliance—but not necessarily private acceptance—of the group’s social norms.
In Brief
The Asch conformity experiments are often interpreted as evidence for the power of conformity and normative social influence, where normative influences is the willingness to conform publicly to attain social reward and avoid social punishment. From this perspective the results are viewed as a striking example of people publicly endorsing the group response despite knowing full well that they were endorsing an incorrect response.
The conformity demonstrated in Asch experiments is problematic for social comparison theory. Social comparison theory suggests that when seeking to validate opinions and abilities people will first turn to direct observation. If direct observation is ineffective or not available then people will then turn to comparable others for validation.In other words, social comparison theory predicts that when physical reality testing yields uncertainty, social reality testing will arise. The Asch conformity experiments demonstrate that uncertainty can arise as an outcome of social reality testing. More broadly, this inconsistency has been used to support the position that the theoretical distinction between social reality testing and physical reality testing is untenable
What does this mean for OD
Conformity is a lubricant that keeps society running smoothly. Complicated social movements become easier when we conform; we like other people who act like us. There’s something to be said for toeing the line and not ruffling feathers. And in some circumstances, we need the people around us to find out not just the expected way to behave, but also the right answer to important questions.
But especially in an individualistic culture like in the West, it sometimes seems distasteful, all this going along with the majority, especially when we do it just to fit in. These are competing forces, the pressure to conform and our drive for independence. It’s the yin and yang of life in the presence of others.
Conformity can affect organizations and individuals as a whole, and it can be both positive and negative. Conformity can be considered good when it forces people to be respectful and show courteous manners. It also poses less problems in a work environment where people are expected to behave in a certain way and there is no room for rebels. Lastly, it discourages people to do indecent acts in public or to make a scene before a crowd, which can cause others to feel awkward and uncomfortable.
Conformity is considered bad in the form of peer pressure. To conform in the face of injustice or actions which are detrimental to organizational performance is another bad effect. In an organization where workers are treated unfairly, individuals are afraid to speak up because no one else is. Often, they end up silent and take the abuse.
When an alliance of workers is formed with the aim of rallying against the management or decision, that is when more people join in and gain the confidence to voice out their complaints, concerns or ideas for improvement. If there’s anything we can learn from history, never underestimate the power of numbers. It is amazing to learn that it always starts with a single person who is not afraid to be an individual and go against the current.
OD requires people to go against the norm and ask questions about what the current norm is in society. OD interventions require non-conformity and creating an environment where it is acceptable. But conformity will be the bond that glues the organization together and ensures that changes are sticky once decisions have been made and changes made. New norms only survive if there is conformity to stay the course.
Social Psychology – Norm Formation
Answers the Question
What is Truth?
How it Began
Muzafer Sherif, one of the founders of social psychology, stands out as one of the main forces behind its growth in the in the 30’s. His work with group processes and inner group conflict following social norms still serves as a reference point to researchers studying groups today.
Muzafer Sherif conducted a classic study on conformity in 1936. Sherif put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved. Psychologists had previously discovered that a small, unmoving light in a dark room often appeared to be moving. This was labeled the autokinetic effect.
Realizing that an experience that is completely “in people’s heads” might be readily influenced by suggestion, Sherif decided to study how people were influenced by other people’s opinions, in their perception of the autokinetic effect.
First Sherif studied how subjects reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were in a room by themselves. He found that they soon established their own individual norms for the judgment—usually 2 to 6 inches. In other words, when given many opportunities (trials) to judge the movement of the light, they settled on a distance of 2-6 inches and became consistent in making this judgment from trial to trial.
In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise. People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches soon made smaller judgments like 4 inches. Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4 inches. People changed to more resemble the others in the group.
Sherif’s subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects directly, “Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments,” most denied it. However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed to the group judgment they recently made. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving about 4 inches. These subjects had been changed by the group experience, whether they realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms.
Key Terminology
Group norms; agreed-upon standards of behaviour. Sherif’s experiment showed group norms are established through interaction of individuals and the leveling-off of extreme opinions. The result is a consensus agreement that tends to be a compromise…even if it is wrong.
Autokinetic effect; An illusion whereby light in a darkened rooms looks like it is moving, although it does not actually move. However, people almost always believe that it does.
Conformity; The act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours to group norms. The tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or society as a whole, and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone.
Norms; Implicit, unsaid rules shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others and among society or social group.
In Brief
Groups have influence on ambiguous and unambiguous situations people often adopt the opinion of other group members and converge to social norms. These social norms reflect group evaluations of what is right and wrong. As a result of converging to groups’ opinions, people become more alike when interacting in groups.
People conform to the opinion of other group members and converge to social norms, because of their need to master the world and the need to be connected by others. Private conformity occurs when people truly believe that the group is right, whereas public conformity occurs when we are pressured to conform to group norms. When publicly conforming, people still privately think the group is wrong.
The degree of conformity is higher in collectivistic cultures, where they view conformity as a social glue, than it is in individualistic cultures, where conformity is seen as something negative.
What does this mean for Organization Development?
Group consensus is highly valued because we think we can trust the outcome of multiple individuals coming to the same conclusion. However, we cannot trust a consensus if (1) people adopt a consensus without carefully considering the relevant information themselves; (2) people are contaminated by shared biases; or (3) people publicly conform to norms.
When different people independently come to the same conclusion, consensus is valid. However, when people do not consider relevant information themselves, consensus is reached without consideration, and does not have much value.
People are less influenced by views from a group than by views from separate individuals. This is perhaps because of the possibility for group consensus to be contaminated. People often go along with group norms to get along. This destroys the reliability of the consensus. Disagreeing people feel fear, and anticipate negative reactions. A single supporter helps us to resist majority pressure.
When a group becomes more interested in reaching agreement than in how agreement is achieved, ineffective decisions may be made. When this desire or pressure to reach an agreement interferes with effective decision making, norm formation has an negative impact on sustainable performance.
Unhelpful norm formation can be avoided by making sure all available evidence is considered; dissenting information should not be avoided or suppressed. The OD practitioner should appoint or play the devil’s advocate if groupthink is suspected. A second way in which norm formation can be disrupted is through group membership being selected for diversity, making sure members’ views are independent from each other.
Finally, people should state their private opinion in public votes, tolerance for disagreement should become higher, and the role of powerful and respected members should be minimized.