– Essay 1
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
To what extent are individuals influenced by the majority and how can this be
explained?
4
5
6
7
8
9
Man is by nature a social animal, and an individual who is unsocial naturally and not
accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something in nature
that preceded the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so selfsufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a
god. (Aristotle, 384-322 B.C.).
10
11
Humans are social beings, constantly seeking interaction and social encounters and thus
12
exposing themselves to social influence that inherently leads to changes in the attitude,
13
beliefs, feelings, perception and behaviour. Social influence has many forms and these
14
include conformity were individuals change their behaviour in accordance to social norms,
15
attempts at persuasion and attitude change, as well as attempts to gain compliance and
16
obedience. This essay will concentrate on the extent to which majority can influence the
17
individual by focusing on the classical conformity studies carried out by Sherif and Asch. In
18
order to investigate the extent to which individuals conform, it will look at the type of
19
individuals who conform and the situational factors influencing conformity. In addition it will
20
focus on the explanations for conforming both from the individual and empirical standpoint.
21
22
Conformity occurs as a result of group pressure, real or imagined (Cialdini & Trost, 1998
23
cited in Bernstein, Penner, Clark-Stuart & Roy 2003). Individuals change their behaviour and
24
go along with the group because they believe such behaviour to be acceptable within a group.
25
No matter how independent an individual is, one always conforms in one situation or the
26
other. Individuals may go along with the group even when the majority is obviously wrong.
27
Such pressures toward conformity stem from the fact that in many contexts there are explicit
28
or unspoken rules indicating how we should or ought to behave (Baron & Byrne, 2003).
29
These rules are known as social norms.
30
31
Sherif (1935) was the first researcher to study conformity. His experiment involved the so-
32
called autokinetic effect whereby a point of light in an otherwise totally dark room will appear
33
to move randomly. Participants were asked to make estimates on the amount of movement
34
that they observed, first privately and then in the group were members could hear each other’s
35
estimates. Ultimately, the results of individual estimates converged and became more alike,
36
which showed an urge to conform.
37
– Essay 1
Page 2 of 3
38
The first systematic study on conformity was that carried out by Solomon Asch (1951), whose
39
research became a classic in social psychology. Asch disagreed that Sherifs experiment
40
demonstrated conformity. According to Asch, the fact that Sherif’s task was ambiguous, in
41
that there was no right or wrong answer, made it difficult to draw conclusions about
42
conformity in group situations (Gross & McIlveen 1998). In Asch’s view, the best way to
43
measure conformity was in terms of a person’s tendency to agree with other people who
44
unanimously give the wrong answer on a task with an obvious and unambiguous solution
45
(Gross & McIlven 1998). In one of Ashc’s experiments, participants were shown a display of
46
vertical lines of different lengths and were asked to indicate which of three comparison lines
47
matched a standard line in length, whereby he included his assistants as participants, who
48
were unknown to real participants. On several occasions Ashc’s assistants were asked to give
49
answers that were obviously incorrect which they stated before the real participants
50
responded. Most participants went along with the wrong answer; they chose conformity over
51
their own judgement. On several different studies the average of those tested, conformed to
52
the group response on 32% of the trials and 74% conformed at least once.
53
54
Although most participants conformed there were some individual differences, -some
55
participants conformed more frequently than others. More recent research has shown that
56
people who tend to conform have low self-esteem (Johnson, 1995), score high on anxiety
57
measures (Bem, 1994), and have low IQ scores (Weschler et al, 2001). Thus, empirical
58
research support that people have certain traits which predispose them to go along with the
59
group. It has also been shown that women are more likely than men to conform (Deaux,
60
1991). Deaux argued that this may be because the women in his study possessed the traits
61
outlined above. The rationale for conforming has also been explored by investigating what
62
people themselves have said. After the experiment Asch asked the participants who
63
conformed to outline why they conformed and they explained this in several ways; they felt
64
influenced by the pressure from the rest of the group, and did not want to appear foolish,
65
some wondered if their eyesight was reliable and some denied being aware they had given
66
incorrect answers. Thus, it appears that people who conform doubt their own ability and fully
67
trust the ability of their peers or group members.
68
69
However, trusting the ability of ones peers and doubting ones own ability to judge does not
70
necessarily mean that people who conform have changed their private view on a matter. This
71
was shown by Asch in a later experiment. He found that when the participants were asked to
72
write their response on a piece of paper instead of saying them out loud, conformity dropped
– Essay 1
Page 3 of 3
73
distinctively as they would not be exposed giving a different answer in the group. Other
74
research has showed the same tendency e.g. (Mass & Clark, 1984 cited in Baron &Byrne
75
2003) also showed that individuals were likely to follow social norms overtly without actually
76
change their private views.
77
78
Asch’s research proved that conformity occurs as a result of group pressure and that people
79
who were insecure about their own ability were more susceptible to this pressure, but he also
80
showed that conformity does not occur to the same degree in all settings. The extent to which
81
the group or majority can influence an individual is determined by many situational factors.
82
One of these factors is cohesiveness which means we are influenced by those we like.
83
Cohesiveness can be defined as the degree of attraction felt by individuals toward some group
84
(Baron & Byrne 2003). The new hairstyle taken in by those who are popular is more likely to
85
spread than if this new hairstyle was adopted by those who are viewed as unpopular and
86
weird. Research findings indicate that cohesiveness exerts strong effects on conformity
87
(Crandall, 1988; Latane & L’Herrou, 1996 cited in Baron & Byrne 2003). The other factor
88
affecting conformity is the group size. Asch found that conformity increases with the larger
89
group but only up to three people. No further increase in conformity was evident once the
90
majority size went beyond three. More recent studies (Bond & Smith, 1996 in Baron &
91
Byrne, 2003) have suggested that increased majority sizes beyond three will increase
92
conformity, but by smaller and smaller number.
93
94
Conformity is a fascinating issue which has intrigued both lay people and social psychologist
95
over the years. Pioneering research by Asch and Sherif has provided insight into its
96
mechanics e.g. research in the field have shown that the degree of conformity is influenced by
97
situational factors such as group size and cohesiveness. Moreover, it appears that individuals
98
with certain traits are more likely to conform than others. Despite the complexity of the issue,
99
empirical research support that most individuals conform to the imagined or real group norms,
100
which is chilling news for a society that parades individuality and freedom of choice.
101
102
REFERENCES:
103
Baron, R. A.& Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psycholoy. Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
104
Gross, R. & McIlven, R. (1998). Psychology: A New Introduction. Oxon: Bookpoint, Ltd.
105
Gleitman, H. (1995). Psychology. New York: Norton.