Public
Conformity turns vinegar into wine
How people twist their perceptions and judgments under majority pressure
Humans have the peculiar gift of sometimes being taken in by collective belief systems that everybody actually objects to in private. Under extreme conditions, this mechanism can cement social norms that nobody wants. Nevertheless, people publicly adopt these ideas because they falsely assume that others cherish them. As a team led by sociology professor Robb Willer of the University of California, Berkeley showed in a dramatic series of experiments, we are prone to let our judgments be unduly influenced by the expressed judgments of others - even if those run blatantly afoul of our personal perceptions. And to make things worse, the conformists then tend to act up as the persecutors of the few steadfast, punishing them for the defiance of the group norm.
The strength of the pressure to conform was impressively demonstrated in the 1950s by American social psychologist Solomon Asch: He imposed on his subjects the simple task of evaluating the lengths of some lines which were the same or different. A children's game, that was done flawlessly by anyone as long as they were in the room alone. Remarkably, the participants suddenly wavered when in the presence of other subjects, who, on instruction from Asch, submitted a uniformly false judgment. Under this conformity pressure, on average 37 percent of the subjects defected to the obviously wrong majority opinion. But the rate of 37 percent does not imply that the majority remained unaffected: 75 percent of participants caved in at least once to the crowd during the 12-manipulated passes. And the subjects who revolted against group judgement afterwards suffered from intense and sustained stress, while the conformists calmed down immediately.
We are more readily taken in by the majority, the more vague and ambiguous the facts are. And most belief systems are based after all on vague opinions and moral, aesthetic or political assessments. People readily bow to the dictates of the group in the ideological sphere, as Willer and his team demonstrated in a series of experiments.
In the first experiment, 52 people were offered the task of testing the quality of three supposedly different wine samples. In reality, the samples A, B and C were identical wines, but sample C had been made unpalatable by the addition of vinegar. The subjects completed the test either solo or in a public round with other jurors (in facts confederates of the experimenter), who had supposedly taken a wine class, the majority of whom bashed the innocent sample B as distasteful.
Conclusion: Left to their own devices, almost all participants correctly recognized C as lousy. Under peer pressure, however, a majority of 53 percent let themselves be fooled into speaking ill of the good sample B. And not only that: Ironically, the conformists, who had apparently turned vinegar into wine, afterwards, in the discussion group, most severely nagged at the "incompetence" of the few dissenters, who had insisted on the correct judgment C.
In another experiment, 76 subjects were asked to assess the intellectual content of a sociological text, which was written in a ranting tone – and actually was complete nonsense. De facto it consisted of excerpts from a nonsensical manuscript that the American physicist Alan Sokal had deliberately assembled in 1996 and sent to the magazine "Social Text", which was known for its postmodern orientation.
A few lines of O-Ton: "evidence of those emancipated mathematics' distinguished itself from the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory; However, this approach still suffers from its origin from the crisis of late capitalist relations of production. "
The magazine printed the text unopposed in a special issue - and thus became a beacon for the gullibility and manipulation in certain scientific circles.
The subjects had to examine the manuscript either alone, without any suggestive setting, or in a group with other jurors supposedly possessing greater expertise, who praised the printed nonsense to the skies.
Same trend: Under private inspection, most rejected the academic garbage; but under social pressure, they bowed to the absurd group norm. And again spoke disparagingly about those who had resisted the glorification of the intellectual crap.
In the third and final experiment, the task for nearly 50 independent judges was to evaluate the credibility and competence of the subjects from the previous test, who had either voted for the truth or for the collective lie. Shocking results: The conformists, who of all people, had repressed their private conviction, hyped the nonsense and rode roughshod over the dissenters in the discussion, were now considered as more competent and credible than the guardians of incorruptibility.
The study leader explains the results the following way: The participants who fell over and bowed down to the majority norm are insecure and try to downplay this by appearing particularly feisty to the outside world. The burden of proof rests upon them: The others might notice that they had only curried favor with them. Therefore, they for all one is worth mimic the representative of the true faith – and sucker the bystanders into believing their show. So they become enforcers of social norms that nobody really wants. In real life, this effect is probably even stronger, psychologists suspect. People in the military, in religious communities or in politics form groups that, for better or worse, rely the loyalty of their members.
The results of conformity research make it unlikely that there are certain individuals who are "immune" because of personality traits that protect them against social pressure. The American psychologist Jerry M. Burger of Santa Clara University has recently shown in an research review that personality traits did not affect the behavior in the famous Milgram experiment. The so-called empathic concern, i.e. the inclination not to want to hurt anyone, according to Burger did not affect the readiness to deliver electric shocks. Also ethnicity, faith, education, occupation, age, income, moral maturity and political views made no difference. Persons who described themselves as rebellious and unruly pressed the lever fully, while others, who assessed themselves as adjusted and well-behaved, broke off the attempt. With the suitable subject, and in the appropriate group, everyone is likely to tip over.
Only such people who are strongly morally dedicated to certain topics resist conformity pressure, says psychologist Linda Skitka from the University of Minnesota. Whether environmentalists, animal activists, religious fundamentalists or anti-abortionists - they all rely on their basic moral values in order to justify their actions. Such "moral mandates" manifest themselves in a social context: Who firmly believes that something is right or wrong, that something "must be such" or "may not be such" remains true to their faith, no matter what the majority says.
Source: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/4570/false%20enforcement.pdf
How people twist their perceptions and judgments under majority pressure
Humans have the peculiar gift of sometimes being taken in by collective belief systems that everybody actually objects to in private. Under extreme conditions, this mechanism can cement social norms that nobody wants. Nevertheless, people publicly adopt these ideas because they falsely assume that others cherish them. As a team led by sociology professor Robb Willer of the University of California, Berkeley showed in a dramatic series of experiments, we are prone to let our judgments be unduly influenced by the expressed judgments of others - even if those run blatantly afoul of our personal perceptions. And to make things worse, the conformists then tend to act up as the persecutors of the few steadfast, punishing them for the defiance of the group norm.
The strength of the pressure to conform was impressively demonstrated in the 1950s by American social psychologist Solomon Asch: He imposed on his subjects the simple task of evaluating the lengths of some lines which were the same or different. A children's game, that was done flawlessly by anyone as long as they were in the room alone. Remarkably, the participants suddenly wavered when in the presence of other subjects, who, on instruction from Asch, submitted a uniformly false judgment. Under this conformity pressure, on average 37 percent of the subjects defected to the obviously wrong majority opinion. But the rate of 37 percent does not imply that the majority remained unaffected: 75 percent of participants caved in at least once to the crowd during the 12-manipulated passes. And the subjects who revolted against group judgement afterwards suffered from intense and sustained stress, while the conformists calmed down immediately.
We are more readily taken in by the majority, the more vague and ambiguous the facts are. And most belief systems are based after all on vague opinions and moral, aesthetic or political assessments. People readily bow to the dictates of the group in the ideological sphere, as Willer and his team demonstrated in a series of experiments.
In the first experiment, 52 people were offered the task of testing the quality of three supposedly different wine samples. In reality, the samples A, B and C were identical wines, but sample C had been made unpalatable by the addition of vinegar. The subjects completed the test either solo or in a public round with other jurors (in facts confederates of the experimenter), who had supposedly taken a wine class, the majority of whom bashed the innocent sample B as distasteful.
Conclusion: Left to their own devices, almost all participants correctly recognized C as lousy. Under peer pressure, however, a majority of 53 percent let themselves be fooled into speaking ill of the good sample B. And not only that: Ironically, the conformists, who had apparently turned vinegar into wine, afterwards, in the discussion group, most severely nagged at the "incompetence" of the few dissenters, who had insisted on the correct judgment C.
In another experiment, 76 subjects were asked to assess the intellectual content of a sociological text, which was written in a ranting tone – and actually was complete nonsense. De facto it consisted of excerpts from a nonsensical manuscript that the American physicist Alan Sokal had deliberately assembled in 1996 and sent to the magazine "Social Text", which was known for its postmodern orientation.
A few lines of O-Ton: "evidence of those emancipated mathematics' distinguished itself from the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory; However, this approach still suffers from its origin from the crisis of late capitalist relations of production. "
The magazine printed the text unopposed in a special issue - and thus became a beacon for the gullibility and manipulation in certain scientific circles.
The subjects had to examine the manuscript either alone, without any suggestive setting, or in a group with other jurors supposedly possessing greater expertise, who praised the printed nonsense to the skies.
Same trend: Under private inspection, most rejected the academic garbage; but under social pressure, they bowed to the absurd group norm. And again spoke disparagingly about those who had resisted the glorification of the intellectual crap.
In the third and final experiment, the task for nearly 50 independent judges was to evaluate the credibility and competence of the subjects from the previous test, who had either voted for the truth or for the collective lie. Shocking results: The conformists, who of all people, had repressed their private conviction, hyped the nonsense and rode roughshod over the dissenters in the discussion, were now considered as more competent and credible than the guardians of incorruptibility.
The study leader explains the results the following way: The participants who fell over and bowed down to the majority norm are insecure and try to downplay this by appearing particularly feisty to the outside world. The burden of proof rests upon them: The others might notice that they had only curried favor with them. Therefore, they for all one is worth mimic the representative of the true faith – and sucker the bystanders into believing their show. So they become enforcers of social norms that nobody really wants. In real life, this effect is probably even stronger, psychologists suspect. People in the military, in religious communities or in politics form groups that, for better or worse, rely the loyalty of their members.
The results of conformity research make it unlikely that there are certain individuals who are "immune" because of personality traits that protect them against social pressure. The American psychologist Jerry M. Burger of Santa Clara University has recently shown in an research review that personality traits did not affect the behavior in the famous Milgram experiment. The so-called empathic concern, i.e. the inclination not to want to hurt anyone, according to Burger did not affect the readiness to deliver electric shocks. Also ethnicity, faith, education, occupation, age, income, moral maturity and political views made no difference. Persons who described themselves as rebellious and unruly pressed the lever fully, while others, who assessed themselves as adjusted and well-behaved, broke off the attempt. With the suitable subject, and in the appropriate group, everyone is likely to tip over.
Only such people who are strongly morally dedicated to certain topics resist conformity pressure, says psychologist Linda Skitka from the University of Minnesota. Whether environmentalists, animal activists, religious fundamentalists or anti-abortionists - they all rely on their basic moral values in order to justify their actions. Such "moral mandates" manifest themselves in a social context: Who firmly believes that something is right or wrong, that something "must be such" or "may not be such" remains true to their faith, no matter what the majority says.
Source: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/4570/false%20enforcement.pdf
Add a comment...