how I do this text in my own words in Critically discuss.

Conformity:'Everyone else is doing this'

Research on conformity has tended to explore the effects of social pressures on individual judgements. This has often been used to explore why people might be led into doing things they would not ordinarily do if they were acting alone. As such, it appears more promising in addressing the issue of why good people may do bad things. However, as we'll see, there are reasons to be cautious here too.

2.2.1 Sherif and the autokinetic effect

In his classic experimental demonstration of the formation of group norms, Sherif (1966) took advantage of a visual illusion known as the autokinetic effect. This illusion involves participants being placed in a darkened room with a single point of light projected onto a screen in front of them. In the pitch-black conditions, the point of light appears to move, although in reality it remains stationary.

Sherif asked participants to estimate the distance over which the point of light moved. He did this in two conditions: individually and in groups of two or three participants. Some participants were testedfirst individually, and then in groups; others were tested in groups and then individually. For those who werefirst tested individually, there was considerable variation between their judgements. When these same participants were subsequently tested in groups of two or three and required to call out their estimates so that other group members could hear, the judgements converged over a series of trials. For participants who were initially tested in groups, the estimates again converged, but then when they were subsequently tested individually, their judgements remained anchored around the norm established in the group condition (see Figure 2.1).

2 What are the classic approaches to social influence?

Why do good people do bad things? The psychology of social influence

Starting with individual Group Individual Group Group Group 10 10 88 66Inches Inches

44 22 00

Starting with group

Group

Group

Individual

Informational influence Social influence based on the belief that others are better informed than we are

Figure 2.1 Results from two of the groups in Sherif's study of the emergence of social norms using the autokinetic effect

(Source: adapted from Sherif, 1966)

Each line represents the responses of an individual participant. When individual judgements are deliveredfirst, the initial wide variation in participants'estimates narrows over a succession of trials when participants are brought together in a group. When the individual trial comes last, the convergence of judgements is apparent from the outset, and remains in place even when participants are asked to make thefinal judgement alone.

Sherif'sfindings can be seen as providing an example ofinformational influence-when the correct answer isn't clear or

obvious, we will look to others who we may presume to be better informed than we are. Sherif argued that the experiments provided evidence of the emergence of social norms, and the persistence of these norms even when the group was no longer directly present. He speculated that this helped to shed light on the basic social psychological processes underlying a range of phenomena, including the development of socially shared customs, stereotypes and fashions.

Activity 2.1: Going along with the crowd

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you have'gone along with the crowd'and done something because everyone else in your

46

group was doing it? Equally, have you ever rebelled and remained independent despite pressures to conform?

What do you think led you to behave in these ways?

2.2.2 Asch's line-length judgement experiments

Sherif's study involved the creation of a deliberately uncertain situation. In contrast, Solomon Asch (1952, 1956) conducted a series of landmark experiments exploring people's reactions to situations in which they were asked to perform a clear and straightforward perceptual task that other people appeared to be getting consistently wrong. In the best-known of the experiments, each participant took part as a member of a group of between seven and nine people. However, the other members of the group were confederates-people who were employed by Asch to provide the wrong answer. The task itself required participants to look at three lines of unequal lengths and decide which of the lines was the same length as a target line (see Figure 2.2). The correct answer was always clear and unambiguous, but to be on the safe side Asch included a control group who judged the stimuli alone, and found that there were virtually no mistakes.

2 What are the classic approaches to social influence?

Target A B C

Figure 2.2 Stimuli used by Asch (1956): which line is the same length as the target line?

47

Chapter 2

Why do good people do bad things? The psychology of social influence

Normative influenceSocial influence that occurs because of pressures to'fit in'with a group, or more broadly with what we perceive to be expectations about what we should do.

In comparison with the control group, participants who took part in the experimental condition (i.e. with confederates) made many more errors over a series of trials, with over 75 per cent of them being swayed by the majority on at least one occasion out of the 12 trials (Asch, 1956). However, Asch was keen to point out that, while most participants in the group condition made at least one error, over all the trials the number of incorrect judgements was far outweighed by the number of independent (correct) judgements.

Asch conducted post-experiment interviews with his participants to try tofind out what they made of the situation he had created, and why they had behaved as they did. Before being told that the experiment had been a set-up, Asch's participants often said they had been confused by what happened, and tried to rationalise both their own conduct and the conduct of the other group members. Participants frequently referred to the pressure they felt to'go along with the crowd'(Asch, 1956, p. 31), but also to provide the correct answer. In short, the experiment had led to a dilemma between conforming to the group and providing the objectively correct answer. Even participants whose judgements were highly independent could acknowledge the norm of going along with the group. Asch (1956, p. 31) reports that one such participant began the post-experiment interview by saying,'I hope you didn't think I was different-I was just calling them as I saw them.'And yet, despite these pressures to conform, as noted above, the majority of responses displayed independence. To the extent that participants were influenced by the group to provide an incorrect answer, Asch's study can be seen as demonstratingnormative influence. In contrast to informational influence (see above), this refers to occasions when we go along with the group out of a fear of social disapproval. However, it is important to note that in most situations, both informational and normative influence will be at work. Even Asch's experimental situation-despite the easiness of the task-can be shown to have informational pressures (Deutsch and

Gerard, 1955). For example, some participants suggested the sheer weight of numbers getting a seemingly straightforward task wrong led them to doubt the evidence of their own eyes.

Sherif's and Asch's experiments are often seen as classic examples of the ways in which individual judgement can be skewed by social pressures, typically in group situations. However, it seems that neither Sherif nor Asch was entirely happy that their work should simply be seen as evidence of the irrationality of the individual in the face of

48

group pressures. Sherif (1966) came to reflect somewhat ruefully on the way in which his experiments were understood by many social psychologists. He saw his studies as offering a glimpse of how people arrive at consensus in the face of unclear and confusing information, and believed that his experiments therefore revealed something fundamental about the social nature of the ways in which people arrive at definitions of reality. Similarly, Asch (1956) actually framed his experiments on the judgement of line lengths as examples of the way in which, more often than not, group pressure is insufficient to overcome individual rationality.

Some authors have thus attempted to develop alternative accounts of 'conformity' phenomena that take seriously the dynamics of the situation in which participants find themselves. For example, Hodges and Geyer (2006) suggest that Asch's participants who sometimes gave the wrong answer to fit in with the group should not be seen as simply making an obvious error in the face of pressures to conform. Rather, they suggest that the competing values of accuracy and solidarity should both be seen as meaningful responses in this situation. Specifically, Hodges and Geyer argue that errors might represent strategic attempts to keep oneself 'in the conversation' (2006, p. 6) so that subsequent dissent might be more effective. If you are in the difficult situation of disagreeing with a group that is unanimously in opposition to you, then sometimes it might be wise to go along with that group so that when you do subsequently disagree, you have built up a base layer of solidarity with your fellow group members.

This points to the possibility that behaviour that apparently is the result of 'mindless' conformity might in fact be the product of a rather more complex attempt at resistance. Indeed, Asch points to a more general danger in emphasising conformity at the expense of resistance:

One need not doubt the great power of social forces to realise that conformity is not the sole effect they produce. The striving for independence and resistance to encroachment are as much facts about people as is conformity. It is consequently unduly narrowing to emphasise submission, to the neglect of the not inconsiderable powers persons demonstrate on occasion for acting according to conviction and rising above group passion.

(Asch, 1956, p. 2)

2 What are the classic approaches to social influence?

49

Chapter 2

Why do good people do bad things? The psychology of social influence

50

It is notable that, in some versions of his study, Asch (1951) found that if only one additional person dissents from the majority view, conformity is drastically reduced. This suggests that the group processes that sometimes produce erroneous responses can also work in the other direction and encourage people to stick together when they have the right answer. But can such minorities go further and actually influence a majority?

2.2.3 Minority influence and bias in social psychology

This question was addressed by Moscovici (1976), who argued that social influence research exhibited a bias towards conformity. By this he meant that a lot of research on social influence looked at how individuals can be made to fit in with social norms. In contrast, Moscovici suggested that research should explore how social change occurred, and that this required the exploration of minority influence. Moscovici argued that it is minorities - groups who are excluded from, or are on the fringes of, mainstream society - that are the main engines of social change.

Moscovici and his colleagues (e.g. Moscovici et al., 1969; Moscovici and Lage, 1976) conducted a series of experiments designed to explore minority influence. Like Asch's studies, the basic version of Moscovici's procedure involved a simple perceptual task - naming the colour of a series of slides projected onto a screen. When a minority (played by confederates) asserted that blue slides were in fact green, there was a small but nevertheless statistically significant effect on the responses of the majority group composed of nave participants. Over a series of studies, consistency emerged as the most important factor in the ability of minorities to influence majorities. When the minority was inconsistent, the effect was eroded. Moscovici has argued that a desire to avoid conflict is at the heart of the minority influence effect. Majority group members are motivated to avoid disagreement and achieve consensus, and so when faced with a determined and consistent minority that disagrees with the majority position, there is a preference for moving towards the minority position in order to reduce conflict and minimise tension. Applied to social issues, this sort of influence from a consistent minority can lead to genuine and long lasting changes in attitudes (Wood et al., 1994). This helps to explain how small groups of determined and vocal campaigners have been able to gradually change the majority view on issues such as gay marriage.