There's a saying that "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down" but the willingness to conform (even against our own misgivings) is a part of the human psyche. It's something that allows us to form massive social groups – or commit acts of callous cruelty. Let's have a look at...
Male participants were recruited using newspaper advertisements, and the participant would be "randomly" assigned a role – this would always be to ask another "participant" (actually a stooge) questions and administer punishment for giving the wrong answer.
The participant would be led to a room with the restrained stooge in the next, then instructed to ask questions via a speaker system – and in the event of a wrong answer, inflict an increasingly intense electric shock. The stooge made a point of talking about his heart problems when all this was being explained.
The stooge would answer incorrectly the majority of the time, prompting the participant to deliver an escalating shock – these shocks were actually fake, but the participant didn't know that. The shocks quickly reached levels marked "severe danger," but an observer in a lab coat would order the participant to continue if they showed any hesitation.
Since the only feedback from the stooge to the participant was via audio, they would hear only the screams, pleading, thrashing and eventually silence of the stooge. Two-thirds of participants continued to the highest voltage, although they did show signs of severe stress themselves.
Variants of this study revealed some further interesting effects – the conformity of participants could be reduced by conducting the study away from Yale University, by having the observer not wear a lab coat, by forcing the participant to hold down the hand of the stooge or even having a second "participant" that refused to continue.
The twist was that the participant was accompanied by seven other "participants" who were stooges, all of whom would pick the same obviously wrong answer and state it out loud prior to the real participant revealing their pick – this scenario would be repeated several times for each participant.
Seventy-five percent of participants conformed with the (clearly incorrect) stooges at least once, with roughly a third of participants going along with the group each time. When making judgments without the stooges being present, over 99% of the answers given were correct.
When interviewed about their responses, participants admitted that they were going along with the majority to not seem peculiar or open themselves up to ridicule – though a small number insisted that their answers were genuine. Critics of the study have suggested that this tendency towards conformity was a product of the time since the "red scare" and McCarthyism was in full swing – though you could argue that this is a case of people conforming by becoming more conformist!
3. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison ExperimentIn 1973, Philip Zimbardo recruited a group of volunteers (screened to avoid psychological issues and drug dependencies) to act as prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The objective was simple – Zimbardo wanted to observe the psychological and behavioral effects of becoming a prisoner.
Local police staged mock arrests for the "prisoners" and they were transported a refitted-basement in Stanford University. Prisoners were issued prison smocks, while guards received a uniform, billy-club and carte blanche to use any method short of physical violence to maintain order.
Some guards began abusing prisoners within a matter of hours, whilst prisoners started ratting each other out over infractions. On the second day, the prisoners rebelled, barricading themselves inside cells – in response, the off-duty guards volunteered to come in and help suppress the uprising. They made use of icy blasts from a fire extinguisher to force prisoners back and breach the barricades.
In the aftermath, the prisoners were stripped naked and denied food, with those least involved in the rebellion having those "privileges" restored. By this point, at least one of the prisoners began showing signs of serious psychological trauma and had to be released.
Rumors of another mass escape attempt caused the guards to go into overdrive – they even went as far as attempting to enlist the help of the local police department to contain the "prisoners." The punishments and humiliating tasks handed out also increased in intensity.
The madness was brought to an end by Christina Maslach, a PhD brought in by Zimbardo to interview both the guards and prisoners. It should be noted that neither the police nor a catholic priest brought in as a "visiting chaplain" had raised concerns.
Unsurprisingly, the validity of the experiment has been called into question by several researchers, and a BBC-sponsored study loosely based on the Stanford experiment found different results – though the researchers did note that the study was not an exact replication and that society had changed a great deal since the original experiment.
There's also a difference in the attitude towards conformity between eastern and western communities. Bond and Smith conducted a meta-review of conformity studies in 1996, finding that individuals from collectivist cultures (when achievements of the group are lauded above those of the individual, a common viewpoint in the east) were far more likely to conform than westerners.
You can actually see this in advertising – slogans like "the car in front is a Toyota" might do well in Japan, but America puts more stock in individuality, so the slogan is viewed with bemusement!
- Textbook Conformity: Psychology's Take
- Milgram's Behavioral Study of Obedience
- Asch's Line Judgement Study
- Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
- Individual Differences in Individuality
 |
| Being the odd one out can be good, or it can be bad... (Camera-man) |
Textbook Conformity: Psychology's Take
In psychology, conformity means altering your behavior to match that of another (usually dominant) social group. It comes in one of three flavors:- Compliance: When an individual acts in lockstep with a group, even if they privately disagree with them.
- Identification: When an individual conforms with a person or group in the hope of gaining acceptance into that group.
- Internalization: When an individual genuinely changes their behavior and attitude to match an emulated group.
1. Milgram's Behavioral Study of Obedience
In 1963, psychologist Stanley Milgram was reviewing the testimony given at the Nuremberg trials when he noticed something – the accused often defended themselves by saying they were "only following orders." Wondering if this was a facet of the German personality, he designed an experiment to see if Americans would follow cruel and dangerous orders.Male participants were recruited using newspaper advertisements, and the participant would be "randomly" assigned a role – this would always be to ask another "participant" (actually a stooge) questions and administer punishment for giving the wrong answer.
The participant would be led to a room with the restrained stooge in the next, then instructed to ask questions via a speaker system – and in the event of a wrong answer, inflict an increasingly intense electric shock. The stooge made a point of talking about his heart problems when all this was being explained.
The stooge would answer incorrectly the majority of the time, prompting the participant to deliver an escalating shock – these shocks were actually fake, but the participant didn't know that. The shocks quickly reached levels marked "severe danger," but an observer in a lab coat would order the participant to continue if they showed any hesitation.
Since the only feedback from the stooge to the participant was via audio, they would hear only the screams, pleading, thrashing and eventually silence of the stooge. Two-thirds of participants continued to the highest voltage, although they did show signs of severe stress themselves.
Variants of this study revealed some further interesting effects – the conformity of participants could be reduced by conducting the study away from Yale University, by having the observer not wear a lab coat, by forcing the participant to hold down the hand of the stooge or even having a second "participant" that refused to continue.
2. Asch's Line Judgement Study
Another classic study comes from Solomon Asch in 1951. He conducted a line judgment study – an easy task in which a drawing of a line is shown, and the participant is asked to match it to one of three other lines.The twist was that the participant was accompanied by seven other "participants" who were stooges, all of whom would pick the same obviously wrong answer and state it out loud prior to the real participant revealing their pick – this scenario would be repeated several times for each participant.
Seventy-five percent of participants conformed with the (clearly incorrect) stooges at least once, with roughly a third of participants going along with the group each time. When making judgments without the stooges being present, over 99% of the answers given were correct.
When interviewed about their responses, participants admitted that they were going along with the majority to not seem peculiar or open themselves up to ridicule – though a small number insisted that their answers were genuine. Critics of the study have suggested that this tendency towards conformity was a product of the time since the "red scare" and McCarthyism was in full swing – though you could argue that this is a case of people conforming by becoming more conformist!
 |
| Do prisons shape the behavior of guards and inmates? (Ichigo121212) |
3. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison ExperimentIn 1973, Philip Zimbardo recruited a group of volunteers (screened to avoid psychological issues and drug dependencies) to act as prisoners and guards in a mock prison. The objective was simple – Zimbardo wanted to observe the psychological and behavioral effects of becoming a prisoner.
Local police staged mock arrests for the "prisoners" and they were transported a refitted-basement in Stanford University. Prisoners were issued prison smocks, while guards received a uniform, billy-club and carte blanche to use any method short of physical violence to maintain order.
Some guards began abusing prisoners within a matter of hours, whilst prisoners started ratting each other out over infractions. On the second day, the prisoners rebelled, barricading themselves inside cells – in response, the off-duty guards volunteered to come in and help suppress the uprising. They made use of icy blasts from a fire extinguisher to force prisoners back and breach the barricades.
In the aftermath, the prisoners were stripped naked and denied food, with those least involved in the rebellion having those "privileges" restored. By this point, at least one of the prisoners began showing signs of serious psychological trauma and had to be released.
Rumors of another mass escape attempt caused the guards to go into overdrive – they even went as far as attempting to enlist the help of the local police department to contain the "prisoners." The punishments and humiliating tasks handed out also increased in intensity.
The madness was brought to an end by Christina Maslach, a PhD brought in by Zimbardo to interview both the guards and prisoners. It should be noted that neither the police nor a catholic priest brought in as a "visiting chaplain" had raised concerns.
Unsurprisingly, the validity of the experiment has been called into question by several researchers, and a BBC-sponsored study loosely based on the Stanford experiment found different results – though the researchers did note that the study was not an exact replication and that society had changed a great deal since the original experiment.
Individual Differences in Individuality
Not all people have the same response to authority. Perhaps they're more confident, have less trust in "authorities" or simply don't feel any need to kowtow. Take Maslach for example – as a PhD, she probably felt fairly qualified to question Zimbardo's methods since she had come out of years of studying psychology.There's also a difference in the attitude towards conformity between eastern and western communities. Bond and Smith conducted a meta-review of conformity studies in 1996, finding that individuals from collectivist cultures (when achievements of the group are lauded above those of the individual, a common viewpoint in the east) were far more likely to conform than westerners.
You can actually see this in advertising – slogans like "the car in front is a Toyota" might do well in Japan, but America puts more stock in individuality, so the slogan is viewed with bemusement!
Thanks for reading - for more, try...