The psychological experiment used 123 male subjects. The individual participants were not told about the whole concept of the study; the participants assumed that it was a random study without rehearsals. Behind the scene actors were chosen to help aid with the experiment. The actors were told precisely what to say and how to respond to the questions that were asked.
The participant was given card number one, which had a vertical line on it. Then the participant was given card number two, which had three lines that were of different lengths. Then the participant was asked which line or mark on the second card matched with the line on the first card. The answers were labeled as one, two, or three, or as a, b, or c.
But here’s the catch. Before the participant could answer, he had to listen to the responses of 5 or 7 actors, and sometimes as many as 15 actors. The actors were told in advance whether to answer correctly or incorrectly to the questions. Some rounds or trials the answers from the actors were correct, but many times their responses were deliberately supplanted with the wrong answers. This was purely intentional, but the participant was completely unaware of the deception.
Each participant had no way of knowing the outcome. Professor Asch just wanted to see how the group of actors, or more specifically, how they answered the questions, would influence the behavior of the participants. Asch thought that most of the participants would not give an incorrect answer just because the actors did. However, the results would prove Asch wrong, at least for the most part.
Results proved that the majority of participants conformed on 37% of the so called trials. About 25%, or roughly one-fourth of participants, did not conform on any trial. Three-fourths, or 75% of participants, conformed at least once. Five percent of participants conformed every time.
The Asch conformity experiments demonstrated the real power of Group Dynamics. The results overwhelmingly showed that the individual was heavily influenced by the group of actors. It did take a total of three or more actors to heavily influence the participant. One or two actors was not a major impact of the participant’s decision or thought process.
The Bandwagon Effect supports this phenomenon. It suggests that people will say things, do things, and believe things simply because many other people will do the same. If the crowd tends to believe something, the individual will jump on the bandwagon, even without seeing if there is any evidence to support the belief.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. However, if the majority of the people point at a deer and call it a horse, then it surely must be a horse. You will confirm this, right?http://ki4kqd.net/2010/11/17/the-asch-paradigm-of-todays-society/
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Types of Conformity & Theory on Conformity
Kelman (1958) suggests 3 types of conformity:
1. Compliance - A change in behaviour without a change in opinion (going along with the group).
2. Internalisation - A change in behaviour and opinion. 'True Conformity'.
3. Identification - Adopting the group's views because value group membership. Often temporary.
There are two main theories that try to explain conformity and why people conform.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) Dual Process Dependency Model • Normative Social Influence (NSI) - people conform out of a desire to be liked and accepted. • Informational Social Influence (ISI) - people conform out of a desire to be right. This need for information on how to behave is especially true in novel or ambiguous situations.
Turner (1991) states that the dual process dependency model underestimates the psychological importance of group membership (like identification). We conform to the group because we define ourselves as part of the group. In other words, we 'self-stereotype'.
There is a three-part process:
• Acknowledge membership of the group
• Learn the group norms
• Behave according to those norms
These "norms" tell us what we should or ought to be thinking, feeling, or doing if we want to fit in with a particular group. Most people conform to norms without much thinking about it. For example, most people tip in restaraunts, raise their hand when wishing to speak in a group setting, or sit down when they eat. While none of these incidences involve formal rules, most people comply with them. However, there are certain times when people are more or less likely to conform to the existing norms. Several factors affect the degree to which conformity will occur.
Group cohesiveness (the degree to which we are strongly attracted to a group and desire to maintain membership in it) increases the occurrance of conformity. For example, countless research studies exist which display the degree of conformity in sororities and fraternaties. In a like manner, the number of persons exerting pressure increases the amount of conformity.
This is true only to a certain point. A group size of about three to four people will exert pressure to conform. However, a larger group size does not increase the likelihood of conformity.
Finally, having an ally -- someone who disagrees with the majority-- results in much less conformity than when no social support exists for the target of conformity.
1. Compliance - A change in behaviour without a change in opinion (going along with the group).
2. Internalisation - A change in behaviour and opinion. 'True Conformity'.
3. Identification - Adopting the group's views because value group membership. Often temporary.
There are two main theories that try to explain conformity and why people conform.
Deutsch and Gerard (1955) Dual Process Dependency Model • Normative Social Influence (NSI) - people conform out of a desire to be liked and accepted. • Informational Social Influence (ISI) - people conform out of a desire to be right. This need for information on how to behave is especially true in novel or ambiguous situations.
Turner (1991) states that the dual process dependency model underestimates the psychological importance of group membership (like identification). We conform to the group because we define ourselves as part of the group. In other words, we 'self-stereotype'.
There is a three-part process:
• Acknowledge membership of the group
• Learn the group norms
• Behave according to those norms
These "norms" tell us what we should or ought to be thinking, feeling, or doing if we want to fit in with a particular group. Most people conform to norms without much thinking about it. For example, most people tip in restaraunts, raise their hand when wishing to speak in a group setting, or sit down when they eat. While none of these incidences involve formal rules, most people comply with them. However, there are certain times when people are more or less likely to conform to the existing norms. Several factors affect the degree to which conformity will occur.
Group cohesiveness (the degree to which we are strongly attracted to a group and desire to maintain membership in it) increases the occurrance of conformity. For example, countless research studies exist which display the degree of conformity in sororities and fraternaties. In a like manner, the number of persons exerting pressure increases the amount of conformity.
This is true only to a certain point. A group size of about three to four people will exert pressure to conform. However, a larger group size does not increase the likelihood of conformity.
Finally, having an ally -- someone who disagrees with the majority-- results in much less conformity than when no social support exists for the target of conformity.
Conformity: Bad Thing?
Conformity is the "action or behavior in correspondence with socially accepted standards, conventions, rules, or laws" as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. In the quotation by Thoreau, he neither states whether conformity is a bad thing, nor a good thing. However, he does call those who are conformists to "let him [the nonconformist] step to the music he hears..." Taking a step further, I will analyze the action of conforming in a society and the personal immorality of it, as well as the nonconformist movement.
A society that breeds conformity is a dangerous thing in today's world for many reasons. While it leads you to feel accepted for who you are in a small group of people, it is only making you feel accepted for who it molds you to be. By conforming to a group, you are either changing who you are to fit in, or you are masking your true self by the veil of conformity. By conforming to a "socially accepted standard," you are not allowing yourself actually be yourself. Conformity is wrong, as it is only changing or masking who you really are on the inside to make you just like everyone else on the outside.
One of my friends is a prime example of a nonconformist, or a person who does not conform to the accepted standards of a society. In high school, she associated herself with the "straight-edge" movement. It originated from Ian MacKay's song "Straight-Edge," which is "a punishing song excoriating those who sought strength in the weakness of drugs and drink" (Greenwald 10-11). Needless to say, she kept herself clean of all of society's pulls. She never drank, did drugs, and tended not to conform to any of society's demands. By seeing who she has made herself to be, there is not a doubt in my mind that she got there because of those 18 years of her life when she did not conform to society, and instead was herself. When I asked her about why she chose this generally less treaded path, she explained to me about her idea of the "crowd." She said that when someone follows the crowd, he or she is not being true to him or herself; he or she is denying themselves the essential individuality that each person has. Society has taught us to suppress this individual in ourselves, and replace it with the accepted way to talk, act, think, and in general: be.
Thoreau gave the famous metaphor comparing a person who lives in a society, but not of the society, to a person who hears a different beat in life, hence stepping "out" of beat. The idea that this individual who is stepping to his or her own beat is actually stepping out of beat is accurate, but in this sense, stepping out of beat is the right thing to be doing. The use of this metaphor is very easily understood and has stood the test of time. Even today, the idea of people stepping to their own beat is used commonly. Perhaps it is the use of the idea of music as a general theme that has allowed it to span across generations, unchanged in meaning, yet just as influential in nature.
Conformity is the driving force behind the stability of society's trends. I believe that the real crime in conformity is that society is teaching us to not be ourselves.
Greenwald, Andy. Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo. St. Marin's Griffin, New York. 2003.
A society that breeds conformity is a dangerous thing in today's world for many reasons. While it leads you to feel accepted for who you are in a small group of people, it is only making you feel accepted for who it molds you to be. By conforming to a group, you are either changing who you are to fit in, or you are masking your true self by the veil of conformity. By conforming to a "socially accepted standard," you are not allowing yourself actually be yourself. Conformity is wrong, as it is only changing or masking who you really are on the inside to make you just like everyone else on the outside.
The pressure of conformity leads people to change who they are, or never let them get the opportunity to get to know who they really are in the first place. They change simply so that they can fit into a society or group of friends. This feeling of acceptance and unity is really only a byproduct of being exactly the same person as everyone else in society. It is impossible for you to be disliked by people who are your mirror images.At most high schools in the United States, it is possible to find examples of conformity. The students are influenced not by their own opinions, but by opinions fed to them by the media and by their peer group. As parodied in the movie Josie and the Pussycats, there seems to be national trends that phase in and phase out of society almost in unison. High school students seem to all listen to the same pop-music playing on Clear Channel stations, wear the same brand name clothing, drive the same cars, and act in the same manner. This does not go to say that all students in high school are conformists, as I will talk about later, but rather, there is conformity that seems to take over the easily molded minds of teenagers.
It is very easy to find examples of conformity of the masses in a high school situation; however it is also possible to find times when adults are pressured by the same force of conformity. The saying "keeping up with the Jones's" applies here, as it implies the general desire to have what your neighbor has. For example, if a neighbor installed a pool, you would have the desire to have a pool regardless of if you need it, or if you could even afford it. In this sense, conformity is dangerous--getting many people into debt and steering away from the idea of economy. While so many people are influenced by conformity, there is a select group that seems immune to it all--the nonconformists. One of my friends is a prime example of a nonconformist, or a person who does not conform to the accepted standards of a society. In high school, she associated herself with the "straight-edge" movement. It originated from Ian MacKay's song "Straight-Edge," which is "a punishing song excoriating those who sought strength in the weakness of drugs and drink" (Greenwald 10-11). Needless to say, she kept herself clean of all of society's pulls. She never drank, did drugs, and tended not to conform to any of society's demands. By seeing who she has made herself to be, there is not a doubt in my mind that she got there because of those 18 years of her life when she did not conform to society, and instead was herself. When I asked her about why she chose this generally less treaded path, she explained to me about her idea of the "crowd." She said that when someone follows the crowd, he or she is not being true to him or herself; he or she is denying themselves the essential individuality that each person has. Society has taught us to suppress this individual in ourselves, and replace it with the accepted way to talk, act, think, and in general: be.
Thoreau gave the famous metaphor comparing a person who lives in a society, but not of the society, to a person who hears a different beat in life, hence stepping "out" of beat. The idea that this individual who is stepping to his or her own beat is actually stepping out of beat is accurate, but in this sense, stepping out of beat is the right thing to be doing. The use of this metaphor is very easily understood and has stood the test of time. Even today, the idea of people stepping to their own beat is used commonly. Perhaps it is the use of the idea of music as a general theme that has allowed it to span across generations, unchanged in meaning, yet just as influential in nature.
Conformity is the driving force behind the stability of society's trends. I believe that the real crime in conformity is that society is teaching us to not be ourselves.
Greenwald, Andy. Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo. St. Marin's Griffin, New York. 2003.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Conformity
con·form·i·ty/kənˈfôrmitē/
| Noun: |
|
Mob Mentality
The term “mob mentality” is used to refer to unique behavioral characteristics which emerge when people are in large groups.
When used in a pejorative sense, the term implies a group of people which has gotten out of control.
Example:
In a news story about a store sale at which people were trampled, the journalist might use “mob mentality” to describe the selfish behavior of the people who attended the sale. Such stories illustrate the desperate actions which people will involve themselves in during a period of resource competition; people may mob trucks with relief supplies, trample each other at big box stores, or riot in the streets in response to resource scarcity or a perceived scarcity.
However, “mob mentality” is about more than just crowds which have gotten out of control. The field of psychology is very interested in the ways in which human behavior change in response to new social situations. People behave very differently in small groups of individuals than they do in big crowds, for example, and their behavior in crowds is affected by a wide variety of factors.
The study of crowds has also been used to study grim topics like the rise of antisemitism in Germany under Hitler, the riots between Muslims and Hindus which broke out when India was partitioned, and the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm
When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity. Groups can generate a sense of emotional excitement, which can lead to the provocation of behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if alone.
Example: Think about the last sporting event or concert you attended. It’s unlikely that you would have been yelling or singing the way you were if you were the only person doing it! The group seems to make some behaviors acceptable that would not be acceptable otherwise.
But, this does not happen all the time obviously.
http://source.southuniversity.edu/examining-the-mob-mentality-31395.aspx
When used in a pejorative sense, the term implies a group of people which has gotten out of control.
Example:
In a news story about a store sale at which people were trampled, the journalist might use “mob mentality” to describe the selfish behavior of the people who attended the sale. Such stories illustrate the desperate actions which people will involve themselves in during a period of resource competition; people may mob trucks with relief supplies, trample each other at big box stores, or riot in the streets in response to resource scarcity or a perceived scarcity.
However, “mob mentality” is about more than just crowds which have gotten out of control. The field of psychology is very interested in the ways in which human behavior change in response to new social situations. People behave very differently in small groups of individuals than they do in big crowds, for example, and their behavior in crowds is affected by a wide variety of factors.
The study of crowds has also been used to study grim topics like the rise of antisemitism in Germany under Hitler, the riots between Muslims and Hindus which broke out when India was partitioned, and the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mob-mentality.htm
When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity. Groups can generate a sense of emotional excitement, which can lead to the provocation of behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if alone.
Example: Think about the last sporting event or concert you attended. It’s unlikely that you would have been yelling or singing the way you were if you were the only person doing it! The group seems to make some behaviors acceptable that would not be acceptable otherwise.
But, this does not happen all the time obviously.
http://source.southuniversity.edu/examining-the-mob-mentality-31395.aspx
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Red Scare and The Crucible
"Hysteria lacks common sense"
Similar to the 1950’s Red Scare when common sense was displaced with irrationalities and stupidity, Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, mimics the absence of honest common sense in hysteric times. It is evident common sense is missing in the play because wild accusations are made, the proof for the convictions is absurd, and routine normalities are given up.
http://bookstove.com/drama/crucible-and-the-red-scare/
Similar to the 1950’s Red Scare when common sense was displaced with irrationalities and stupidity, Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, mimics the absence of honest common sense in hysteric times. It is evident common sense is missing in the play because wild accusations are made, the proof for the convictions is absurd, and routine normalities are given up.
http://bookstove.com/drama/crucible-and-the-red-scare/
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The First Red Scare
The word "Red" has long been associated with the Communists and Socialists, while "White" has been associated with the conservatives
Red Scare - a period of general fear of communists
Red Scare - a period of general fear of communists
Despite finding no credible evidence that a communist plot was underway, Palmer staged more raids in January 1920. With the assistance of local law enforcement officials throughout the country, as many as 6,000 suspects were arrested and detained.
Palmer claimed to know that May 1, the socialist Labor Day, would bring massive demonstrations as a prelude to revolution. The American public was apprehensive as the date approached, but the predictions proved to be without foundation and Palmer’s standing declined rapidly. He was criticized sharply for conducting searches without warrants and for denying detainees legal representation. Most damning were the charges of some who believed that Palmer had manufactured the crisis as a means to gain the Democratic presidential nomination in 1920.
The events of 1919-1920 were the first of a series of “red scares” in American history in which the government would clamp down on real or imagined domestic revolutionaries.
(http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1343.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)