- Email: [email protected]
Personal and situational factors in conformity to group pressure
CONFLI
ECISION AND
Orgarhatcw: L. FESTINGER(Stanfird Uni:llersity, Stanford, Cai$) Prhident: F. BARTLETT(Gambridge, Engiand) Rapportcurs: R. S. CRUTCHFIELD, I. L, JANIS,L. FES~G~ Discumlants invith: H. C. J. DIJIJKFJR~ E. TRBT
ERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL FACZTORSIN CONFOR GROUP PRESSURE BY RICHARD S. CRW~HF~E~D (University of Ca&2mia, .Berkeley,Calif.)
In order to study conformity behavior, a standardized experimental technique has been designed for measuring conformity tendencies in the individual. The person is required to announce judgments of various stimuli in a group situation where, through deception practiced by the experimenter, tne rest of the group members are made to appear to express a unanimous judgment contradictory to his own. Conformity is measured by the extent to which he expresses agreement with the false group consensus. Two general propositions about conformity behavior are considered: I) corlformity behavior in the individual is significantly related to enduring characteristics of personality; 2) the effects of these personality factors are modifiable by situational factors, such as the importance and meaning of the group pressure situation to the individual. Evidence supporting these propositions comes from a series of studies.
superior in intellitive social relations. situation, has been shown to have ditions where their behavio them as having extremeIy old to the zzrne degree or in the sa.me pattern. For these subjects, conformity is more common and more generalized. And it ap ars that their conforming is more closely related to the aim of making a good impression in e group situation, us there is support than to factors having to do with ego weakness, etc. for the proposition that the way personality factors influence conformity depends in part upon the nature of the psychological situation in which the conformity is elicited. This proposition is further supported by differences found in the conformity behavior of male and female subjects in the standard test situation. The females conform more readily, and the personal correlates of their conforming behavior are appreciably different from those in the males. An interpretation of this finding is that males and females perceive the group pressure situation in different ways, owing to their differing beliefs and values concerning conformity, as reflected in the contrasting of the typical feminine and masculine roles. For example, it is found tha in females conformity or independence in the group pressure situation tend to be related to the person’s attitudes of acceptance or rejection of the conventional feminine role, with its elements of compliance with authority, dependent relations with others, etc. Light is thrown on the complex interaction of personal and situational factors in determining conformity by the study of the various ways th individual may see to resolve or reduce the cognitive discrepancy be
judgment and,the contra One way is through self-blame, discrepancy to his own errors in judgment, and thus easily co Conversely, the person may blame the perceiving them irllerror he is enabled to re judgment. There are also cases in which the called expedient conforming, that is, with the group consensus despite the that the group is wrong. It has been found that inhere characteristics that distinguish such expedient conformers from conform out of self-doubt. Another way of reducing the cognitive discrepancy is to avoid lo at the contradictory group judgments: thus retiorcin Conversely, the person may avoid looking at the stimuli he is sup judge, choosing rather to look only at the judgments of his group fellows as a guide to his own response; this obviously reduces the conflict and makes it easie,-to confnz-3. Under goup pressure there is a decrease in the confidence of the individual in his own judgments. This decrease is much greater in the independent subjects than in the conforming subjects. Moreaver, this reduced confidence generalizes to cause weakened confidence even on those easy judgments where there is no group pressure9 that is, where the group consensus is actually correct.
ATTITUDE CHANGE AND THE RESOLUTION OF MOTIVATIONAL CON FL1 BY
This paper will describe some of the new theoretical 4evelapments that have grown out o.frecent experimental and observational studies conducted as part of the Yale University Research project on communication and attitude-change. A number of theoretical assumptions will be formulated concerning alternative ways of resolving the conflicts that are aroused when a persuasive communication, or some other form of social pressure, induces a person to
cation variables, such as the or&~
A theoretical distinction is made between predecision and postdecision situations. Before a person has chosen a certain course of action we may in conflict. We examines the various alternatives, speak of him as uctuates back and forth considerin what is best and so forth. his choice, however, the vaccilation usually ceases. The now becomes directed toward justifying the course of action ne example of such a situation comes about if pressure is put on a person to overtly do or say something which is contrary to what he really believes. If the p-ressure, in the form of promised rewards or threatened punishment, is su ient to force the person to engage in the overt behavior, he will then be uncomfortable about the discrepancy between ?Jvhathe has done and what he privately believes. One way ianwhich he may reduce this discomfort and justify to himself what he has overtly done is to change his private belief so that it actually agrees more closely with his overt behavior. 1 have recently completed a laboratory exlperiment to test whether this actually occurs, Each subject in the experiment was given a dull and boring experience and then was paid to tell someone else that the experience had
been very interestingand enj
jects do change their opinion b&wing that it was more enjoyabl is more; the more money they were paid to eng cmtrary to their private opinion, and hence, the less justification of this beha.vior,the less was the tendency to ~0~~~ t~e~ls~lv~ thar the boring experience had really been ther experimentshave variety of situations. Fo decision beitweentwo obj before and the rejected o beck showedthat, ifpers opinion they hold, they will want to talk to others who share their opinion in an effort to regain confidencein it. nother experiment that I produced:.results showing that. if a person is committed to a given course of action, he will try to avoid exposing himself to information which shows that the course of action is unwise. In other words, there are a wide variety of situations in which peoplt: will have tiormation which does not fit together with beliefs they hold or behavior they are en ged in. When such a #situationarises, they will try to reduce the discomfort of the situation, or, to put it another way, will attempt to justify their beliefs or their actions.
ECISION AND
Orgarhatcw: L. FESTINGER(Stanfird Uni:llersity, Stanford, Cai$) Prhident: F. BARTLETT(Gambridge, Engiand) Rapportcurs: R. S. CRUTCHFIELD, I. L, JANIS,L. FES~G~ Discumlants invith: H. C. J. DIJIJKFJR~ E. TRBT
ERSONAL AND SITUATIONAL FACZTORSIN CONFOR GROUP PRESSURE BY RICHARD S. CRW~HF~E~D (University of Ca&2mia, .Berkeley,Calif.)
In order to study conformity behavior, a standardized experimental technique has been designed for measuring conformity tendencies in the individual. The person is required to announce judgments of various stimuli in a group situation where, through deception practiced by the experimenter, tne rest of the group members are made to appear to express a unanimous judgment contradictory to his own. Conformity is measured by the extent to which he expresses agreement with the false group consensus. Two general propositions about conformity behavior are considered: I) corlformity behavior in the individual is significantly related to enduring characteristics of personality; 2) the effects of these personality factors are modifiable by situational factors, such as the importance and meaning of the group pressure situation to the individual. Evidence supporting these propositions comes from a series of studies.
superior in intellitive social relations. situation, has been shown to have ditions where their behavio them as having extremeIy old to the zzrne degree or in the sa.me pattern. For these subjects, conformity is more common and more generalized. And it ap ars that their conforming is more closely related to the aim of making a good impression in e group situation, us there is support than to factors having to do with ego weakness, etc. for the proposition that the way personality factors influence conformity depends in part upon the nature of the psychological situation in which the conformity is elicited. This proposition is further supported by differences found in the conformity behavior of male and female subjects in the standard test situation. The females conform more readily, and the personal correlates of their conforming behavior are appreciably different from those in the males. An interpretation of this finding is that males and females perceive the group pressure situation in different ways, owing to their differing beliefs and values concerning conformity, as reflected in the contrasting of the typical feminine and masculine roles. For example, it is found tha in females conformity or independence in the group pressure situation tend to be related to the person’s attitudes of acceptance or rejection of the conventional feminine role, with its elements of compliance with authority, dependent relations with others, etc. Light is thrown on the complex interaction of personal and situational factors in determining conformity by the study of the various ways th individual may see to resolve or reduce the cognitive discrepancy be
judgment and,the contra One way is through self-blame, discrepancy to his own errors in judgment, and thus easily co Conversely, the person may blame the perceiving them irllerror he is enabled to re judgment. There are also cases in which the called expedient conforming, that is, with the group consensus despite the that the group is wrong. It has been found that inhere characteristics that distinguish such expedient conformers from conform out of self-doubt. Another way of reducing the cognitive discrepancy is to avoid lo at the contradictory group judgments: thus retiorcin Conversely, the person may avoid looking at the stimuli he is sup judge, choosing rather to look only at the judgments of his group fellows as a guide to his own response; this obviously reduces the conflict and makes it easie,-to confnz-3. Under goup pressure there is a decrease in the confidence of the individual in his own judgments. This decrease is much greater in the independent subjects than in the conforming subjects. Moreaver, this reduced confidence generalizes to cause weakened confidence even on those easy judgments where there is no group pressure9 that is, where the group consensus is actually correct.
ATTITUDE CHANGE AND THE RESOLUTION OF MOTIVATIONAL CON FL1 BY
This paper will describe some of the new theoretical 4evelapments that have grown out o.frecent experimental and observational studies conducted as part of the Yale University Research project on communication and attitude-change. A number of theoretical assumptions will be formulated concerning alternative ways of resolving the conflicts that are aroused when a persuasive communication, or some other form of social pressure, induces a person to
cation variables, such as the or&~
A theoretical distinction is made between predecision and postdecision situations. Before a person has chosen a certain course of action we may in conflict. We examines the various alternatives, speak of him as uctuates back and forth considerin what is best and so forth. his choice, however, the vaccilation usually ceases. The now becomes directed toward justifying the course of action ne example of such a situation comes about if pressure is put on a person to overtly do or say something which is contrary to what he really believes. If the p-ressure, in the form of promised rewards or threatened punishment, is su ient to force the person to engage in the overt behavior, he will then be uncomfortable about the discrepancy between ?Jvhathe has done and what he privately believes. One way ianwhich he may reduce this discomfort and justify to himself what he has overtly done is to change his private belief so that it actually agrees more closely with his overt behavior. 1 have recently completed a laboratory exlperiment to test whether this actually occurs, Each subject in the experiment was given a dull and boring experience and then was paid to tell someone else that the experience had
been very interestingand enj
jects do change their opinion b&wing that it was more enjoyabl is more; the more money they were paid to eng cmtrary to their private opinion, and hence, the less justification of this beha.vior,the less was the tendency to ~0~~~ t~e~ls~lv~ thar the boring experience had really been ther experimentshave variety of situations. Fo decision beitweentwo obj before and the rejected o beck showedthat, ifpers opinion they hold, they will want to talk to others who share their opinion in an effort to regain confidencein it. nother experiment that I produced:.results showing that. if a person is committed to a given course of action, he will try to avoid exposing himself to information which shows that the course of action is unwise. In other words, there are a wide variety of situations in which peoplt: will have tiormation which does not fit together with beliefs they hold or behavior they are en ged in. When such a #situationarises, they will try to reduce the discomfort of the situation, or, to put it another way, will attempt to justify their beliefs or their actions.