Scientific experiments of social conformity

Are you asking yourself, “why do so many people conform with irrational and demonstrably destructive social behaviour?” I know I am.

After 1945, two major scientific experiments aimed to quantify social conformity under experimental conditions. The results were startling, but considering current events — not surprising.

The following provides summaries of two well-known conformity experiments and two associated conformity phenomena.

First, let’s first define conformity.

“Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded.”

— Conformity, Wikipedia

Norms are either implicit or specific rules that guide interaction with others. Conformity is considered a path of least resistance.
i.e., It is easier to follow existing paths made by others in society.

It may occur subtly through subconscious influence or through direct social pressure.

There are two main experiments aimed to scientifically measure conformity:

1. Milgram Experiment.
   Tested particiant’s willingness to shocks others.

2. Asch Conformity Experiments.
   Tested how social pressure from a majority group affected conformity.

Conclusions for each experiment:

1. Milgram Conclusion.
   66% of participants were willing to kill someone if directed by an authority.

2. Asch Conformity Conclusion.
   Some participants willing to ignore reality in order to confirm to a group.

Milgram Experiment

Milgram devised his psychological study to explain the psychology of genocide and answer the popular contemporary question:

"Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

The experiment was repeated many times around the globe, with fairly consistent results.

— Milgram experiment, Wikipedia

Procedure

Three individuals took part in the experiment:

1. Experimenter.
   In charge of session.

2. Teacher.
   Experimental subject.

3. Learner.
   Actor pretending to be a volunteer of the session.

Both the experimental subject and actor arrived together at the session. They were told the session was, “a scientific study of memory and learning,” to measure the effect of punishment on a Learner’s ability to memorize content.

They were assigned roles of Teacher and Learner through slips of paper.

The Teacher and Learner were taken into adjacent rooms:

1. The Learner was strapped to a supposed electric chair.

2. The Experimenter wore a white lab coat to appear as an authority figure.

3. The Teacher and the Learner were separated so they could communicate, but not visually see each other.

The Teacher was instructed to:

1. Teach the Learner to memorize word pairs given from a list.

2. Prompt the Learner with the first word of a given word pair.

3. Confirm the correctness of response from a button press of the Learner.

4. Administer a shock if the answer was incorrect.

5. Increase voltage by 15 V for each wrong answer.
   The generator was marked from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock.
   (There were no shocks during the experiment).

If the Teacher wished to halt the experiment, the Experimenter was instructed to give sequential verbal prods:

1. Please continue or Please go on.

2. The experiment requires that you continue.

3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.

4. You have no other choice; you must go on.

The experiment was halted if:

1. The Teacher continued through all 4 of the verbal prods.

2. The Teacher administered the maximum of a 450 V shock 3 times in a row.

Prediction

Milgram polled:

1. His students.

2. Colleagues.

3. Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick.

4. 40 psychiatrists from a medical school.

The common belief was that few subjects would progress beyond very strong shock.

Milgram suspected before the experiment that the obedience exhibited by Nazis reflected a distinct German character, and planned to use the American participants as a control group before using German participants, expected to behave closer to the Nazis.

However, the unexpected results stopped him from conducting the same experiment on German participants.

— Milgram experiment, Wikipedia

Results

1. Subjects were uncomfortable administering the shocks and displayed varying degrees of mental stress. Visual signs of stress included:

   1. Sweating.

   2. Trembling.

   3. Stuttering.

   4. Biting lip.

   5. Groaning.

   6. Digging fingernails into skin.

   7. Nervous laughing fits or seizures.

2. 14 out of 40 subjects displayed nervous laughing or smiling.

3. Every participant paused the experiment at least once to question it.

4. Most continued after being reassured by the Experimenter.

5. An average of 66% of subjects would administer a fatal voltage to the Learner.

Asch Conformity Experiments

In 1951, Asch conducted his first conformity laboratory experiments at Swarthmore College, laying the foundation for his remaining conformity studies.

Many early studies in social psychology were adaptations of earlier work on "suggestibility" whereby researchers such as Edward L. Thorndyke were able to shift the preferences of adult subjects towards majority or expert opinion.

Solomon Asch's experiments on group conformity mark a departure from these earlier studies by removing investigator influence from experimental conditions.

— Asch conformity experiments, Wikipedia

Procedure

Nine individuals took part in the experiment:

1. Experimenter.
   In charge of session.

2. Subject Participant.
   Experimental subject.

3. Actor Participant.
   Seven student actors with knowledge of experimental aim.

Groups of eight male college students participated in a simple perceptual task, however seven participants were Actor Participants and one Participant was the experimental subject.

The Participants were taken into a room:

1. All Participants viewed a card with a line on it followed by another with 3 lines labelled A, B and C.

2. One of these lines was the same as the first card and the other two were clearly shorter or longer.

3. Each Participant was asked to say out loud which line matched the first card.

4. The group was organized so Actor Participants answered first.

The Subject Participant completed 18 trials:

1. In the first 2 trials, Actor Participants gave obvious correct answers.

2. In the 3rd trial, Actor Participants would give all the same wrong answer.

3. For the remaining 11 trials, Actor Participants continued to give wrong answer.

The test would measure how many Subject Participants changed answers to conform with the other seven Actor Participants. Subject Participants were debriefed and interviewed after the experiment.

The control experiment included only the Subject Participant and Experimenter.

The experiment in total had:

1. 50 Subject Participants in the experimental condition.

2. 37 Subject Participants in the control condition.

Results

In the control group, the error rate was less than 1%.

In the Actor Participant condition:

1. 63% of answers remained correct.

2. 37% of the answers conformed with Actor Participants and were incorrect.

This revealed strong individual differences:

1. 5% of Subject Participants were always swayed by the crowd.

2. 25% of Subject Participants consistently defied majority opinion.

3. Remaining 70% of Subject Participants conformed on some trials.

4. 75% of Subject Participants gave at least 1 incorrect answer.

“That intelligent, well-meaning, young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern.”

— Solomon Asch

Corollaries

This leads to several important concepts regarding public consent and perception management. Keep in mind that government and corporations use these phenomena to sell ideas through products and manufacture consent.

Communal Reinforcement

Communal reinforcement is a social phenomena where an idea is repeatedly asserted within a community regardless if evidence supports it. Over time, the idea becomes a strong belief and may be regarded as fact.

The idea may be further reinforced by publications in mass media, entertainment, etc. Often the phrase, “millions of people can’t all be wrong,” is indicative of the tendency to accept a communally reinforced idea without question.

This creates widespread communally transmitted factoids — an invented or assumed statement presented as fact or triviality.

Spiral of Silence

The spiral of silence is a mass communications theory that states an individual’s perception of public opinion influences their willingness to express political opinion.

1. Individuals will be more confident and willing to express personal opinion if the same opinion is shared throughout a group.

2. Individuals will be more reserved and silent if their opinion is unpopular throughout a group.

Self-expressive vocalization:
(i.e, Free speech).

1. Can change the environment of opinion.

2. Shift the perceptions of others.

3. Increase the willingness of others to express their own opinion.

Major components of the spiral of silence are:

1. An issue of public interest.

2. Divisiveness of issues.

3. A sense that helps an individual perceive group majority and minority opinion.

4. Fear of isolation from social interaction.

5. Individual belief that a different / minority opinion isolates oneself from others.

6. A resilient group of people whose opinions are unaffected by others.

Based on this theory, it is always important to voice your opinion — especially when something is wrong — regardless of perceived majority opinion, because it has the potential to shift perception.

1. We tend to stay silent when majority opinion differs from our opinions.

2. Distorting the perception of majority opinion can induce conformity.

Concluding Remarks

It is important to protect ourselves and those we care about from government, organizations and individuals seeking to misuse conformity phenomena.

Awareness and education is the key to minimize the impact of conformity oriented propaganda and PsyOps products.

We need to fight hard for:

1. Freedom of speech.

2. Controversial public discussions.

3. The ability to challenge communally accepted beliefs.

Consider reading my previous posts on Communications Theory:

How does brainwashing work? Your guide to understanding mass formation psychosis

The hidden mechanism of mass media propagation and persuasive influence (PsyOps)

The basics of psychological operations (PsyOps)

Always be mindful of the media and information you consume.
Ask questions, and never be afraid to voice your opinion and do the right thing.