One strength of this theory is that it has research to support it from Asch's 1951 study into conformity. The interviews that were taken after the experiment had finished, stated that there were two main reasons that the participants conformed. The first reason was that they didn't want to be ridiculed by the rest of the group from differing in opinions. They wanted to fit in so went along with the majority group, typical of normative social influence. The second reason was that they honestly thought that the rest of the group knew better than them and that their own judgements were incorrect, typical of informational social influence.…
A social interaction within a group of two or more people creates a group environment. These groups create a social power, or group dynamic, that influences the perceptions of the individuals of the group (Myers, 2010). The dynamic is directly related to the behaviors and actions of individual group members. Each interaction between group members has the potential to impact…
What is the influence of other group member's opinions on the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of an individual. What if we are not sure how to act in a certain situation. As stated in the text "we know other people conform, we underestimate the extent to which we can be induced to follow the group" (Aronson, p.23,2012). Groups have influence on ambiguous and unambiguous situations. In an individualistic culture, such as that of the US, conformity connotes something negative. However as a society we still need to master the world, and be connect by others. Thus people conform to the opinion of other group members and yield to social norms. As stated by Aronson,…
Group size has an unprecedented impact on the nature of social interaction. Studies have shown that as group size increase individuals typically reduce their efforts. Imagine something as gigantic as our government, between the House and the Senate there are five hundred and thirty five members in the United States Congress. Groups of that magnitude fall victim to groupthink, or decision making that ignores alternate solutions in order to keep group harmony. Although after reading this article I highly doubt there will be any harmony between the two political parties anytime soon. The article describes how members of Congress followed the example of their party instead of looking for alternative solutions.…
Diffusion of Responsibility: weakening of each group member's obligation to act when responsibility is perceived to be shared with all group members…
explains why people behave differently than normal when they are amongst a group of people.…
People can change based on the personalities contained in a group. For example, if the personalities in a group are positive and supportive, then each person’s self-esteem is boosted up and he or she will speak his or her mind. However, if the personalities in a group are aggressive or assertive, then each person might be less willing to speak his or her mind and go along with the group. Not only that, but a typical person wouldn’t stand up for something alone. He/she would instead go with the majority of people. In a group of 100 people, each person with his/her opinion, at least 30 % of those 100 would stand up against everyone else.…
Group norms can affect the development of a team When individuals are in groups there are forces at work that shape their behavior. All individuals have their own separate traits, way of thinking and doing tasks, however when they are contributing together as a team they enviably start to exhibit different behaviors which are based on the group norms. For example a team member may not be a brave outspoken individual on their own but when in a group may exhibit more aggressive outspoken tones feeling they are stronger united so to speak as they are trying to fit in as individuals we become influence by others whether this is consciously or subconsciously done this can cause conflict within a team environment. In most team dynamics especially…
Regardless of one’s religion, social classes or political views, we are all susceptible to an innate type of conformity — groupthink. Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs inside a group of people in which the outcome of their decision is lopsided because of the tendency for the people inside the party to choose conformity over disagreement that can result in an irrational decision-making conclusion. The stronger an in-group’s loyalty, the more blind decision one’s group will actively make. Doris Lessing, gave a lecture called “ Group Minds’. Lessing described western societies to be free and educated types of individual. Her concern is will these individual able to generate an idea about themselves as a whole. The author’s…
In the article, “ Opinions and Social Pressure”, by Solomon Asch, a social psychologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, administered experiments in the early 1950s about conformity. The experiment involved tests of visual judgments by comparing the lengths of lines in a group setting. They gathered a group of seven to nine male college students, with all members informed beforehand to give the wrong answers in unanimity at certain points. While a single individual who had no knowledge of the pre-arrangement was the focal point. Furthermore, this experiment observed the power that groups exert on one individual. It takes a glimpse of social pressure and how it impels people to change what attitudes and opinions they have even if it is wrong. Also it looks at how it effects decisions being made in a group of peers. In conclusion, the experiment showed that the resistance to a group of peers depended on independence and most of the tests were uneventful. It didn’t matter how large the line was and the striking answer that it was incorrect, the individual still abided toward the error as so did the majority. So as it is stated in the article, “When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social pressure is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends” (Asch 212).…
[ 3 ]. Solomon E. Asch, "Group Forces in the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Social Psychology, ed. Solomon E. Asch (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1952), 451-57.…
The second example of Groupthink as Irving Janus identified it is Illusions of Unanimity. In the meeting we all kept silent and in doing so gave Susan the impression that we agreed with her. This is particularly dangerous in some respects because it causes each person to suppress their feelings and to go along with the status quo. We don’t think about the cost of going along with Susan, we only worry about the here and now of arguing with her or disagreeing with her opinion. As Ben Carlson wrote “Be aware of the consequences if/when the group is wrong.” We can’t worry about the consequences if we don’t state our…
Even though when we work in groups we usually strive for a harmonious and cooperative environment, this does not mean that an environment in which all members are in total agreement is desirable. The phenomenon termed groupthink describes the kind of situations in which each member of a group attempts to conform his/her opinion to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. Whereas this might be seen by some as a way of keeping the peace among group members, it is a rather negative attitude to have, as concentrating on "playing nice" usually detracts from the process of actually tackling the issues and exploring creative solutions. Thus, it becomes imperative to identify the symptoms of groupthink in order to correct it.…
One of the main topics James Surowiecki concentrates on is, “group polarization.” This is when a few members of the small group takes a side on the extreme opposites. Some of the group might be on the extreme yes side, while others are on the extreme no side. Surowiecki touches on the downfalls of group polarization in small groups by saying, “Deliberation does not moderate, but rather radicalizes people’s point of view.” (Surowiecki Page 479)What Surowiecki is saying is that when in a discussion in a small group the topic of deliberation makes people side with an extreme, there really is no middle ground when people make their decisions. Group polarization is so common among small groups there have been…
Group polarization is the tendency for individuals to form and make decisions that are more extreme than they would in individual situations. For instance, if a number of individuals who support abortion sat down and discussed their perspectives, at the end of the discussion each person would have a stronger, more extreme opinion of why abortion is acceptable. As individuals who support the procedure will typically support their arguments with points such as “the woman should have autonomy over her body,” “a fetus is not yet a child,” etc. Because they all agree on these ideas already, it is not likely that they will discuss that some individuals consider a fetus to be a child, in fact, they may purposefully avoid this point in order to come to a conclusion more easily. In order to advance as a society on the issue of abortion, we need to see and accept other people’s views and opinions and not just our own, so we can come to a middle ground agreement about the polarizing…