Conformity: when we say black is white

Man is a social animal. On the evolutionary path from fossil antiquity to modern times, our ancestors gradually learned to walk upright, lost their tails, and their superciliary ridges smoothed out. Only one thing has not changed: the only way of existence and reproduction of our species is collective. Therefore, it is not surprising that the psychological mechanisms that help us integrate into society and be part of it are incredibly strong. Sometimes, alas, too strong. The desire to be like everyone else, reaching the limit, gives rise to raging crowds and mass hysteria, but if you look closely, it also manifests itself in calm, peaceful everyday situations.

boy and prophet

One of the first to take the trouble to take a closer look was the social psychologist Solomon Eliot Asch. The idea for the now-famous experiment was born from Asch’s childhood experience growing up in Poland in a Jewish family. The boy was seven years old when he first took part in the Passover Seder, a family festive meal that takes place according to a religious ritual. According to tradition, this evening an additional glass of wine is placed on the table, intended for the prophet Eliyahu, as they are waiting for his invisible visit. Grandmother and uncle assured little Ash that at the right time the prophet would certainly warm his sip. The child began to follow the glass very carefully – and really “saw” that the wine had become a little less.

Read more:

• “Let Yourself Be Free”

Asch’s family moved to America, where he grew up, received an education and made a scientific career, and in 1951 launched a series of experiments on conformism – about how, under the influence of a group, a person can change his mind so much that he is ready even to stop believing his own eyes.

I twist, I twist, I want to deceive

The experiment was very simple. Its real purpose was hidden from the participants by presenting the study as an eye test. On the monitor, they were shown two cards, one of which showed a straight line, and the other three lines of different lengths, one of which was equal to the length of the line on the first card, and asked which one. The tasks were the simplest – the cards themselves did not use any optical illusions and other tricks that provoke an eye error. For example, here is what one of these pairs of cards looked like:

In control tests, where participants were not influenced in any way, the error rate was less than 1%. But in the experimental groups, each of which included one subject and seven decoy ducks, something interesting happened. The group examined 18 pairs of cards, and the participants said their answers aloud, in turn, and the seating was organized so that the subject gave his answer last in the group. The decoy participants said what they were told: 12 times out of 18 they unanimously gave a deliberately wrong answer. No other pressure, except for the very fact of an incorrect answer, was exerted on the subjects, in particular, they were not persuaded, they were not shamed. In total, 123 people took part in such group tests, not counting decoys. Of these, three-quarters agreed at least once with the opinion of the rest of the group who gave the wrong answer, a quarter did it every time, and on average the proportion of incorrect answers was 37%.

At the end of the work in the group, the subjects were interviewed, revealing to them the true meaning of what was happening and asking about the reasons that prompted them to respond in one way or another, and about how they felt. The answers turned out to be very different. Among those who did not go along with the group, some felt that they were entering into some kind of silent conflict with the group, others did not pay attention to this, and still others had doubts about the correctness of their answer, but nevertheless gave it.

Read more:

• Love Formula

Even more interesting was the feedback received from the “conformists”: among them there were those (fortunately, very few) who honestly convinced themselves that they saw something that was not there. The rest either considered that they were probably mistaken, and preferred to believe not their own eyes, but their group partners, or they gave the wrong answer, perfectly aware of its fallacy, that is, they lied.

Theme with variations

Over the next few years, Ash repeatedly reproduced his experiment, slightly changing its conditions. In the course of these additional tests, it was possible to find out that when the subject in the group had an “ally” who gave the correct answer in spite of the incorrect answers of all the other decoy participants, the level of conformity decreased markedly. But if, during the work in the group, the “ally” suddenly left it, the subject’s conformism increased again. It also turned out that the more false participants in the group who give incorrect answers, the higher the level of conformism, that is, the more “opponents”, the more difficult it is to resist them. Finally, when the subject was allowed not to say his answer aloud, but to give it in writing, conformity decreased.

Unfortunately, all of the subjects in Asch’s experiments were male. This is apparently explained not by some special misogyny of psychologists, but by the fact that participants were recruited among students, but in the 50s in America it was believed that women did not need higher education. Much later, in 1981, American women Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli summarized the results of 148 studies of conformity that had accumulated by that time and came to the conclusion that, in general, women are more likely to submit to group pressure, but there are and nuances. For example, when experimental work is carried out under the supervision of an influencer, the degree of conformity increases, and the reactions of women, left to their own devices, differ much less from those of men. If the experimenter is a woman, then female subjects are less susceptible to influence. Finally, in mixed groups of men and women, conformity, and among representatives of both sexes, is higher than in same-sex groups.

Man in the elevator

In 1962, Ash took part in the creation of an episode of the comedy TV show Candid Camera, a reality show using a hidden camera. Here is this famous fragment (video in English):

An unsuspecting person enters the elevator and stands up the way we all usually ride in an elevator – facing the doors. But after him, several more people (members of the film crew) enter the elevator and turn to face the wall. It all ends with the fact that the “guinea pig” also gradually, as if by chance, turns to the wall, and it is clearly visible what efforts he should not give the appearance that something wrong is happening. At the end of the video, we see how another person who has become a victim of a prank, despite extreme bewilderment, along with everyone, as if on command, not only turns around, but also puts on or takes off his hat.

Recently, students at Bethany Lutheran College in West Virginia experimented with a man in an elevator scenario using the elevators of a large shopping mall. It turned out not as funny and not as sad as in a comedy show. The younger ones turned their backs, following the lead of the experimenters, about 40% of the time. It is interesting that this figure practically coincides with the result of Asch, who recorded conformist behavior in 37% of cases, and also among young people (recall, the participants in his experiment were students). Older people in the elevator behaved conformist half as often.

Read more:

• (In)addiction thinking

More curiously, men were more likely to either turn fully or not turn at all, while women were more likely to turn partially. It should be noted that the behavior of people in the elevator can be easily explained not only by conformity, but also by the reluctance to be too close face to face with a stranger, that is, the desire to protect their own and others’ borders, so it is hardly worth taking this scenario too seriously.

How to change the wind

Asch’s experiment helps to understand how public opinion works: in order not to become outcasts, people adhere to the views that they consider to be prevailing. This effect was described in 1974 by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, who gave it the name “spiral of silence”.

According to Noel-Neumann’s theory, the spiral of silence is based on the fear of being rejected by society, and the fear is unconscious. The spiral effect (one could also call it the snowball effect) is that the more strongly the prevailing point of view is expressed and the more strongly, according to people, the majority that shares it, the stronger the incentive to demonstrate agreement, the more difficult it is to remain a dissident – in accuracy as in Asch’s experiments. In addition, the spiral of silence occurs only around really important ethical or political issues, disagreements on which seriously split society.

The “Spiral of Silence” explains the frightening unanimity that is often recorded, for example, in the results of sociological surveys: it may turn out that people give the answers they think they are expected to give. The ideologists of the majority use the received figures to strengthen their position, which further increases the number of those who declare themselves to be its supporters. However, sensing that the wind has changed, many of them will just as easily defect to the opposite camp.

Well, Asch’s experiments suggest a tool with which to resist the spiral of silence and, more broadly, social conformity: it is the search for allies and cooperation with them.