Chapter 6 - Conformity and Deviance (2024)

Chapter 6 -Conformity and Deviance

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

THIS CHAPTER WILL DISCUSS:
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

1. How "good" conformity occurs when people privately accept theirgroup's beliefs.
2. How "bad" conformity occurs when people voices what their groupwants them to.
3. How "good" deviance occurs when people contribute new ideas totheir group.
4. How "bad" deviance occurs when people either rebel against orrefuse to participate in their group.
5. How groups can pressure their members to either conform or deviate.
6. How and when deviants can persuade the group majority.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

INTRODUCTION

What do the words "conformity" and "deviance" mean tomost people? If we took a survey and asked a group of people if the term"conformist" has positive or negative connotations, most of themwould probably answer that it has negative connotations. Their response to theterm "deviant" would probably be the same. Both"conformity" and "deviance" seem to have negativeconnotations in our society.

Why do people associate negative stereotypes with these terms? For instance,the word "conformist" perhaps conjures in their minds the image of astereotypic "corporate man." They can see him wearing his brown suitand never questioning his superiors. In contrast, their minds may jump toanother extreme when they hear the term "deviant." They may imagine asociopathic criminal who never gives a second thoughtabout the pain of victims, for

example. These connotations and images are unfairgeneralizations.

For our discussion, we need to look at the terms "conformity" and"deviance" in a new light. They are important concepts in small-groupresearch. The popular beliefs about them, with their unfair stereotypes, havelittle to do with the ways in which the two concepts apply to groups.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Definitions

The issue of conformity versus deviance is very important in small-groupresearch. It becomes relevant whenever a person must choose between going alongor not going along with a group. A group member insuch a situation faces two or more viable options, or courses of action. Thispredicament can come about in two ways. First, it may be that general socialacceptance supports one of the options. For example, in a group of doctors, itmay be socially acceptable for each person to use the title "Doctor."If one of the medical professionals does not wish to use the title, he or shemay feel social pressures that conflict with this personal wish. Second, thegroup member might face a voting majority. He or she must decide between the action the voters support and another action. For instance,a majority of the doctors in the group could vote that all members must use theformal title.

A person conforms if he or she chooses a course of action that amajority favors or that is socially acceptable. In contrast, an individual deviatesif he or she chooses an action that is not socially acceptable or that amajority does not favor. Clearly, there are countless situations when a personfaces a majority opinion. For example, every time you perform the simple actionof dressing in the morning you face a group of people who, as a majority, dressa certain way. Will you dress as they do, for instance in jeans and a T-shirt,or will you dress in another style if you prefer to be different? As you cansee, any action that a person takes in such a circ*mstance is necessarilyeither conformity or deviance.

A person can conform to or deviate from many behaviors. For example, he orshe may conform to a group standard of honesty and integrity. Is such aconformist bad? Analogously, he or she could deviate from a group whose idealis thievery and corruption. This would probably be a good deviate. Thus,neither conformity nor deviance is intrinsically good or bad. The popularbeliefs are unfair.

However, scientists have differentiated between the ways in which peopleconform or deviate, asking why a person behaves as he or she does. In contrastto the action, the reason behind the action may be either good or bad.

For example, conforming to a group ideal of honesty and integrity not out ofbelief in the ideal, but only to go along with the group,probably is not good. Researchers have labeled this kind of undesirableconformity compliance. It occurs when someone conforms in behavioralone. The member who complies simply does whatever heor she thinks the group wants him or her to do. It is usually, but not always,bad for the group.

A second type of conformity, in contrast, occurs when a person conforms inbeliefs as well as in behaviors. This is called private acceptance. Itis usually, but not always, good for the group. For instance, a good conformistin a group that wishes its members to be honest is someone who truly believesin honesty and all for which it stands. This person is honest in allsituations, not just to please the group. Experimenters have made similardistinctions between good and bad forms of deviant behavior.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The StructuralPerspective

In this chapter we will study the concepts of conformity and deviance fromthe structural perspective. As we discussed in Chapter 1, scientists who usethe structural perspective believe that there is a process by whichexpectations of how behaviors "will be" in groups turn intoevaluations of how those behaviors "should be." The evaluations aregroup norms. For example, Jan may tend to speak up first during the first fewtimes a group meets. The group comes to expect that she will do so at eachmeeting. As time goes on, the group may develop a norm that Jan always talksfirst when the members get together. They could finally come to say that Jantalking first is the way it should be.

The concept of norms is very important to the study of conformity anddeviance. Norms are the socially acceptable behaviors in a group. It is inrelation to them that people either conform or deviate. For instance, a grouphas the norm that Jan always talks first. When the other group members chooseto wait for Jan to speak first, they conform. If one day Harold says somethingbefore Jan, Harold has deviated from the group norm.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Norms

Before we begin our examination of conformity and deviance, we need to discusssome important points about norms.

Groups can establish norms concerning almost any behavior, as long as theyconsider the behavior important. However, all norms are not created equal. Theyhave different qualities, such as whether the group itself created the norm, orhow much the group accepts the norm. Here is an example. At Good Old State University,it has long been normative to dress in the "international studentuniform," which consists of clothing such as blue jeans, tennis or runningshoes, sweatshirts, T-shirts, and the like. At West Point,on the other hand, it is normative to dress in a very different kind ofuniform, the cadet uniform.

These "dress" norms may have qualities that vary greatly. We canclassify them and all other norms according to different criteria. Forinstance, we can group them according to their degree of formality versusinformality. Another criterion is the extent to which they are imposed upon thegroup from outside or from within the group itself. Scientists have found thatformal norms tend to come from an outside source. We can see this at work inthe example of

the formal West Pointuniform. In contrast, informal norms tend to emerge, as in the"international student uniform," from the group itself.

A further criterion is the degree of permissible deviation. The"dress" norm at West Point has a much lowerdegree of permissible deviation than the one at Good Old State U. Norms canalso vary in degree of group acceptance. We can assume that the students atGood Old State U., with some exceptions, accept their dress norm more than thestudents at West Point. Most West Pointstudents probably do not wear their uniforms while on vacation, for example.One last important point to remember about norms is that they can apply togroup members in different ways. Some norms may apply to all members; othernorms are relevant only to people taking specific roles in the group.

As we begin our discussion, we need to point out that there will be someambiguity in this chapter. You may find yourself wondering at times if we areexamining our topic in relation to how a group does things or inrelation to the group's outcome. You can intuitively see that normsapply to both behaviors. Groups create norms to direct their members' actionsin the group, and they also approve norms that relate to specific policyproposals they consider. For example, a group develops norms that apply to howit runs its meetings. Beth always calls the meeting to order, Rob usually makesa joke to break the ice, the group votes on important topics, and so on. Thesenorms relate to how the group does its job. The group might also, forinstance, decide that all the members must wear green shirts to the meetingsand that all must agree with a certain political philosophy. Such norms applyto the group's outcome.

In short, there is a distinction between how the group makes decisions andwhat the decisions are. However, this distinction is not very important fromthe structural perspective. For this reason, we will not specify when we aredescribing norms that apply to how a group works and when we are looking atnorms regarding the outcome of a group. This ambiguity does not affect ourdiscussion.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

CONFORMITY

Why Conform?

Why do people conform to group standards? First and foremost, group membersmust conform to make decisions. Conformity occurs when members choose thecourse of action that the majority favors. For instance, a group may have anorm that requires group consensus before it can adopt a course of action. Agroup consensus exists if every member of the group is willing to accept aproposal. Consensus does not imply that every member of the group really likesthe proposal; it does imply that they all feel they can live with the proposal.Every person in the group must eventually conform to some decision, or thegroup remains stalemated.

Another group might have a norm that a voting majority will dictate what thegroup does. In this case, only a majority of the members must conform to anoption. However, all group members need to conform to the idea that"majority rule" is the accepted procedure. Hence, group members inany kind of group must conform in some way before the group can successfullyreach any decision. Without conformity, the group will stand still. We can takethis idea a step further. Members must conform to some operating procedurebefore the group can perform any task, including the task of making a decision.

We can see why conformity is essential before a group can reach a decision.For example, three people might come together in a school lunchroom. Theyconsider themselves a group and have met to plan a school dance. However, thethree people are not willing to agree on how the group should operate. They sitat their table and argue over whether the group should vote on topics orwhether they should select a leader and allow that person to have a majority ofthe power. Without solving this problem, the group members try to decide ifthey should write a list of tasks, but they cannot make a decision because theydo not know whether they should vote on it. As you can see, the group is unableto accomplish anything because the members will not conform in any way.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Motivational Reasons
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The same motivational reasons that people have for joining groups in thefirst place can also cause people to conform. Their reasons for conforming are:
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

1. To gain acceptance from the other group members.
2. To achieve goals that the group intends to reach.
3. To achieve personal goals that they can reach through group membership (forexample, impressing another member to whom they are attracted).
4. To enjoy taking part in group activities and wanting to ensure the group'scontinuation.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Any of these reasons can lead people to conform witha group.

There is an additional motivational reason that could lead to conformity.People may conform because the group succeeds in persuading or pressuring themto do so. We will discuss this possibility further in the next section.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Social Comparison Theory
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Some researchers have proposed that people also conform as a result of apsychological need to evaluate themselves. The theory is that people want toknow whether their beliefs and opinions are what they should be. Festinger (1954) described this as a process of conformityfor the sake of correctness. Researchers call his hypothesis "socialcomparison theory."

According to Festinger, humans have a need to be"correct." The result of this is that people want to evaluate theirbeliefs, periodically, against standards in order to judge themselves. Thereare different kinds of standards. In the case of a belief about "physicalreality," the criteria are absolute. For example, if we want to knowwhether we should think that an object is breakable, we only need to hit itwith a hammer to find out what we should believe.

In contrast, the standards concerning beliefs about "socialreality" are relative. Festinger divides beliefsabout social reality into two categories. The first includes "beliefsabout abilities," and the second involves "opinions." In both ofthese categories, we need to find other people who can serve as standardsagainst which we can judge ourselves. An important point is that these peoplecannot be too divergent from us. If they are, our comparisons with them will bemeaningless. For instance, a high-school basketball player who wishes to make aself-evaluation of his abilities as a player would be foolish to use eitherMichael Jordan as a standard or, at the other extreme, a three-year-old who istrying to dribble. As another example, a moderate Democrat wants to judgeherself regarding an opinion. She should not use either a member of theSocialist Workers Party or a person from the Libertarian Party as a criterion.

Festinger's theory also maintains that people willattempt to change their abilities and opinions if they are not satisfied withtheir self-evaluation. However, the reactions to opinions and abilities differbecause people cannot react to the two categories of beliefs in the same way.People can rank abilities on a scale from "good" to "bad."A basketball player can know, for instance, if he is doing well according tothe number of points he scores. It is clear that a person must move toward the"good" direction on the ranking scale in order to improve.

People react to opinions differently. Instead of rating their opinions on ascale of "good" to "bad," they rate from"correct" to "incorrect." They then change their opinionsto be closer to the "correct" end of the scale. For the Democrat to"improve" her opinions, she must change them until they are closer tothe opinions of other members of the Democratic Party. She does so because sheconsiders the opinions of other members of the Democratic Party correct.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Social comparison theory has been very influential in the field ofsmall-group research. However, it is not a satisfactory explanation forconformity. The weakness in the theory is that the link between a need toevaluate oneself and a tendency to change oneself is not clear. Why should anegative self-evaluation lead someone to change and conform? Perhaps a personis satisfied with his or her lot, whether good or bad.

Festinger saw this weakness in the theory. Heoffered one explanation for why a person would change in reaction to a negativeself-evaluation of abilities. Festinger felt that thereis a cultural value for self-improvement in our society. This, he said, is thelink between judgment and change when abilities are involved.

However, social comparison theory still could not explain why people wouldchange their opinions in order to conform. Festingercreated a new theory to help explain why this might happen. In 1957 he proposedthe theory called "cognitive dissonance." Cognitive dissonance theorymaintains that people are not so much influenced by a need to be correct asthey are influenced by a need to be consistent.

Festinger hypothesized that two beliefs are dissonantif one of them implies the opposite of the other. For example, a person maysay, "I like my group," and also, "I disagree with mygroup." These are likely to be dissonant beliefs if the person also has athird idea that "I should agree with groups that I like." Festinger did not discuss the concept of this third idea,but it is necessary to make his theory work. Without the third statement, theother two may never cause a conflict for the person.

The implications of cognitive dissonance become more interesting if one ofthe "belief" statements involves an actual behavior. For example, anindividual may have three opinions about a group. One of these opinionsinvolves a behavior. He or she might say, "I don't like the group,"and "I don't like the task," but also, "I helped the group withthe task." There are two possible outcomes in this case.

The first outcome is that the person experiences dissonance and must changesomething to be consistent. The third statement above involves the idea thatthe person agreed to do something. This is relatively impervious to changebecause it is about an actual behavior. Thus, the person can only really changethe first two statements. He or she should come to like the group and/or thetask more than he or she does. The theory is unable to predict for certainwhich of the two opinions will most likely change. This inability is a weaknessof the dissonance hypothesis.

The second possible outcome when a behavior statement is part of theequation is that the person will not experience dissonance and will not need tochange beliefs. This can happen because he or she may come to believe that theact of compliance is a result of pressure from the group. The group, and notthe person, is responsible for the conforming action. If this occurs, the factthat the person complied is irrelevant to his or her beliefs. There is no needto change opinions.

For example, Heidi agrees to paint a house with a group. After doing so, sherealizes that she does not like the group, and she does not like to paint. Shemay feel that she has agreed to be part of the group and is herself responsiblefor joining it. If she feels this way, Heidi probably will experience someinternal conflict. In that case, she needs to decide either that she does notreally mind the group or that she likes painting. Or Heidi may tell the groupthat she wants to quit painting, but the group pressures her and says that shemust continue. In such a case, Heidi probably feels no dissonance; and she doesnot feel a need to change her beliefs. She can continue to paint, feelinginside that she does not like what she is doing or the group around her.

Thus, dissonance is a factor only when there is inconsistency between aperson's beliefs and a behavior for which the person feels personallyresponsible. If someone does not feel responsible for a conforming action,there is no internal conflict. We can find similar conclusions regarding responsibilityfor actions within attribution theory, which was described in Chapter 3. Thissimilarity is no accident, as Bem (1972) has shown.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Kiesler and DeSalvo study. Kieslerand DeSalvo performed a study in 1967 to explore theidea that a feeling of personal responsibility is necessary before someone willexperience dissonance. In their study, the researchers assigned women to taskgroups. They also led these women to believe that they disagreed with the restof their group members regarding which tasks the group should perform. Therewere two possible tasks. The experimenters further "gently" inducedhalf of the participants to perform the "disapproved" task, while theother half merely "knew" of the disagreement but did not act on it.Lastly, they led the participants to believe that they would either like ordislike the group.

For example, Mary and Sue come to the experiment. The researchers tell Marythat the best task to do is Task Alpha. However, they also tell her that thegroup will want to do Task Beta instead. They further tell Mary that she canfeel free to go ahead and pursue Task Alpha when the group meets and that shewill like the other group members. Sue, on the other hand, hears that TaskAlpha is the best, but the researchers do not comment on whether she shouldwork on Task Alpha or Task Beta. Sue hears that she will dislike her group. Kiesler and DeSalvo placed theirparticipants in conditions similar to the ones we have described for Sue andMary.

Results showed that there were differences between the participants whosimply "knew" about the disapproved task and the subjects who were"gently" induced to perform the disapproved action. Those who merely"knew" of their disagreement with the group came to see lessdifference between the two tasks if they liked the other members, rather thanif they disliked the group. The participants started to agree with theirgroups. They liked the task they had originally preferred less and liked thetask the group preferred more.

In contrast, participants who complied with the "gentle"inducements came to see less difference between the tasks when they dislikedthe group, as opposed to when they liked it. This outcome fits cognitivedissonance theory. When a person dislikes the group, he or she must come tolike the task to alleviate the internal conflict that results. As we have seenbefore, performing a duty and feeling personally responsible is very difficultif a person dislikes both the group and the task. It is best if the person cancome to like either the group or the group's task.

As we can see, the study results agreed with cognitive dissonance theory.The less a group pressures a person to comply with the group, the more"inside" pressure a person will feel to accept the beliefs that compliantbehavior would imply.

For example, Matt belongs to a group that voluntarily helps clean inner-cityparks and playgrounds. When Matt helps clean, his compliant behavior impliescertain beliefs about the value of cleaning the parks. In order not to experiencedissonance, Matt is likely to come to believe that there is value in his task.However, the amount of pressure that Matt feels from the group affects how muchhe personally urges himself to believe that cleaning is valuable. For instance,he may belong to a group with a carefree leader who lets people work at theirown pace. In such a group, Matt will probably feel "internalpressure" to like the task of improving the inner-city areas. In contrast,Matt might be in a group with a leader who starts to pressure group members,demanding compliance with the leader's rules. In this group, Matt will probablyfeel less compelled to believe personally in the project.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Reactance theory. Brehm extended this notion in 1966 in his reactance theory.He claimed that people need to feel as if they have freedom to control theirbehavior. If a group threatens this freedom, individuals will be aroused toprotect it. Thus, extreme pressure from a group can backfire and lead toincreased deviance. Matt, for instance, may even begin to dislike the very workhe volunteered to do, cleaning parks, if his group becomes too pressure-filled.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Compliance Versus Private Acceptance

In the previous section we summarized some reasons that people conform to theirgroups. However, in our discussion, we have not formally divided these into thereasons behind compliance versus the causes that foster private acceptance. Itmay be impossible to make a clear division between the causes. It is true that,as one of their tasks, some theories definitely attempt to explain why privateacceptance can occur. For instance, this is the case for the social comparison,dissonance, and reactance theories. It is also true that a factor such asagreeing with a group only to impress a member is unquestionably a reason thatleads to compliance. However, the other reasons that we have mentioned, such asconforming to reach a decision, could cause either private acceptance orcompliance.

There are further complications regarding this matter. What starts ascompliance may end up as private acceptance. The theory of cognitive dissonancepredicts this, and the experiment by Kiesler and DeSalvo revealed the process at work. Thus, it is notalways possible to distinguish between the reasons that lead to privateacceptance and those that cause compliance.

Nevertheless, researchers have done some studies that relate specifically tocompliance or to private acceptance.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Compliance
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The person conducting the study asks which of the lines onthe right is the same length as the "standard" on the left. The first person in the line answers, "A." Thesecond also says, "A," and the others follow with the same answer.When your turn comes you say, "A," and think about how obvious theanswer is.

Everyone answers, "B." You again think about how simple the taskis.

The researcher begins to go down the line again, asking the participants foranswers. The first person says, "A." You are surprised, but youdecide that someone was bound to make an error sometime. Thesecond person answers, "A." You start to become uneasy. Thethird person also says, "A," as does the fourth. You cannot believewhat you are hearing, but now the fifth and sixth participants answer,"A." It is suddenly your turn. What do you say?

This situation is the prototype for a series of studies performed by Asch (1951, 1956). Researchers have interpreted hisexperiments as being relevant to compliance. Unknown to the real participant,the other eight "participants" in the line were confederates workingwith the researcher. Asch instructed the confederatesto unanimously give the wrong answer during 12 of the 18 trials. He intendedtheir answers to be so obviously wrong that the real participants could notfail to be amazed at the discrepancy between what they saw and what they heard.Scientists have made the assumption that if the real participant in Asch's study conformed with theincorrect confederates, the conformity was compliance, not private acceptance.This assumption requires some further analysis.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Numeric results. First,let us examine the numeric results of Asch'sexperiment. On the average, 3.84 (or 32 percent) of the 12experimental trials resulted in conformity. We can compare this outcomewith the results from control groups. In the control groups, participants couldsee what others did, but they did not verbalize their own choices. Hence, therewas no pressure to conform. These participants erredan average of only .08 times, or .67 percent. Thus, it seems that the highlevel of conformity in the experimental trials was due to group pressure. Thepressure successfully led the test participants to give an opinion that theydid not really share.

However, this overall conformity result is misleading. It masks the greatindividual differences among the participants. Out of 123 participants, 29 didnot ever conform with their group, 33 conformed oneight or more trials, and the remaining 61 participants went along with theirgroups only on occasion. Only 26.8 percent conformed at a high rate. As we cansee, we must keep these individual results in mind as we examine the assumptionthat Asch's experiment shows compliance at work.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Postexperimental interview results. Next,let us look at the results of postexperimentalinterviews with the participants. These are crucial to our analysis of Asch's study. Participants who never conformed reportedthat they had not conformed for one of two reasons. Some did not conformbecause they were confident that their choices were right, and they wereconfident even though they acknowledged that they had been deviant in the faceof unanimous agreement among the confederates. Others who had not conformedclaimed that they had concentrated totally on the demands of the task, and theyhad not really noticed what the confederates said.

As for the conformists, a small percentage of them claimed to actually haveseen the wrong line as a correct match. If these participants were telling thetruth, we must conclude that private acceptance was at work in Asch's study. These participants privately accepted thebelief of the majority opinion. They were not simply complying with the group.About half of the rest of the conformists claimed that they had seen the linescorrectly but that when they heard the majority choice, they decided that theymust have been wrong. They then went along with the group. Whether this iscompliance or private acceptance is debatable. However, the remainingconformists clearly complied. They said that they thought their choice wascorrect but that they had gone along with the group anyway.

Thus, as we can see, we cannot assume that Asch'sexperiment revealed solely elements concerning compliance. It appears thatperhaps both types of conformity, compliance and private acceptance, were atwork in his study. Nevertheless, Asch's work revealsa great deal about compliance. He also performed variations on his originaltest that yielded further findings. In addition, other researchers have beenable to build on Asch's work.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Variations. Asch compared his original findings with the results ofsome variations on his first test procedure. Some examples of his experiments,along with their results, are:
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

1. A test with two "real" participants instead of one. If one ofthe two did not immediately comply, the other knew that he or she had an ally.This circ*mstance lowered the conformity rate to 10.4 percent.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

2. A study that had one confederate who always answered correctly. The realparticipant now always had an ally. This decreased the conformity rate further,to 5.5 percent. We can conclude from this test that one ally is enough tomarkedly decrease conformity when someone faces an overwhelming majority.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

3. An experiment in which a confederate answered correctly at the beginningand then soon "deserted" to the majority. This situation did not helpthe real participant's courage. The conformity rate was 28.5 percent for thesegroups, which was barely less than when the participant had no ally at all.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

4. A study that had a confederate who stopped conforming and started to saythe right answer, thereby joining the real participant. This was quite helpfulfor the participant and lowered conformity rates to 8.7 percent.

Asch also varied the number of confederates facinga lone test participant. He did this to discover whether conformity wouldincrease as the size of the opposing majority grew. As you recall, the controlgroups had participants who conformed at the rate of only .67 percent. Theresults when Asch increased the majority size tovarious levels were:
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

As the numbers show, there is a high percentage of conformity when a lonedissenter faces a unified majority of only three people. It appears that thissmall group size is sufficient to cause a conformity rate that is close tomaximum potential. Increasing the number of confederates beyond three does notseem to raise conformity levels significantly.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Gerard study. Morethan a decade after these original experiments, Gerard (1965) examined theplight of the lone dissenter. He applied the tenets of cognitive dissonancetheory to the results from Asch's study. As Gerardpointed out, the naive participant is faced with two unpleasant choices in Asch's experiment. He or she can conform, in opposition tohis or her true impressions, or he or she can dissent in the face of possibleridicule and embarrassment. Both choices lead to dissonance.

We can see how conformity would cause a state of dissonance in Asch's experiment. The compliant participant has threeinternal statements that reveal how the internal conflict occurs. He or she isthinking, for instance, "I saw that line C was closest to thestandard," "I said that line A was closest to the standard," and"Line A and line C cannot both be closest to the standard."

Gerard hypothesized that a compliant participant could lower his or herinternal dissonance as the experiment continued. The participant could do so by
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

1. "Seeing" the same way as the group. This is what a smallmajority claimed to have done in Asch's study.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

2. Deciding that what they see is wrong. Many participants did this.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

3. Attributing the responsibility for what they say to the group. In thisway, they feel that the group pressured them to say the wrong thing and that they can comply with a clear conscience. Quite a few ofAsch's participants relieved their dissonance in thisway.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

It is similarly true that deviation, as well as conformity, leads to a stateof dissonance. The participant feels that, "I said that line C was closestto the standard," "The group said that line A was closest," and"I am a member of the group." A person can lower this feeling ofdissonance by psychologically disassociating from the group. A person could dothis by telling himself or herself something like,"I know I am a member of this group, but I don't care whether the grouplikes me. I will continue to say the truth."

Gerard saw these conditions at work in Asch'sexperiments. Gerard took these findings and hypothesized that a participant'sfirst choice of behavior is important. The person can choose to deviate or toconform on the first trial. Whichever action the person chooses, his or hercognitions will probably change so that internal dissonance will decrease insubsequent trials.

For example, Joe feels pressured by his group of friends to help them steala car. Internally, Joe does not believe that he should help them. Joe needs todecide what he will do the first time his friends ask him to steal. Let us saythat, as a first example, Joe does not go along with his friends. To haveinternal harmony, Joe dissociates himself from the group and decides that theseparticular friends are not very important to him. As time goes by and as his friends pressure him to steal other things, the likelihoodis that Joe will continue to refuse. He can do this because the group does notmean very much to him anymore. On the other hand, if Joe steals a car the firsttime, it is likely that he will continue to do so. He will probably tellhimself that the group is right and that stealing is not so bad, in order tolower his internal dissonance.

As you recall, there were consistencies in individual participants' behaviorover trials during Asch's study. These resultssupported Gerard's hypothesis.

What is interesting about the dissonance interpretation of Asch's study is how it relates to an idea we discussedearlier. As we showed, a member will continue to disbelieve a group's opinionif he or she blames the group for his or her act of compliance. If, forinstance, Joe is forced to go with his friends and steal the car, Joe willprobably not come to believe that stealing is all right. This is similar to thethird response that we noted above for people who comply with a group. In fact,a person who feels this way may come to dislike the group and deviate more.

However, once the compliant member comes to blame himself or herself for compliance, the stage is set for the person tobegin to privately accept the group's decision. If this happens, in alllikelihood the person will like the group more. This is the method by which"brainwashing" can occur. For instance, if Joe's group taunts him bysaying that he is just like them or he would not have had them for friends inthe first place, Joe may begin to feel personally responsible for havingfriends who ask him to steal. He may begin to believe his group and start tothink that stealing is all right. If this happens, Joe's group has successfully"brainwashed" him.

Private acceptance can occur in other ways also. The following experimentshows this.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Private Acceptance
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Sherif study. Imagine the followingcirc*mstances: You have again consented to participate in an experiment thatyou think is about perception. This time the experimenter promises you that noconfederates will pressure you to do anything. The researcher takes you into adark room, where you are alone. Suddenly, a point of light appears before you.It seems to move erratically for a few seconds, and then it disappears. Theexperimenter asks you to report how far the light appeared to move.

There is a problem, however. You are not sure how big the room is. Nor doyou know how far the light was from you. In other words, you have no frame ofreference against which you can compare the light's movement. How can you makeyour judgment when you have no frame of reference or basis that you can use toevaluate the light?

This is the prototype procedure for a series of studies that Sherif performed in 1935. In reality, the light did notmove at all. What occurred was a physiological phenomenon that scientists callan "autokinetic effect." The phenomenon isa tendency for lights to appear to move when there are no points of referencefor the eye to use to "tie them down."
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Subjective standards. Sherif's first studies showed that his participants quicklyestablished subjective standards that they could use as points of reference.They would then judge the amount of apparent movement against these"standards." How could they do this? The participants would often usetheir first judgment and the movement that they saw in it as their standard forcomparison. They would then use the immediately subsequent judgments in order toestimate the range of possible movement for the light.

In Sherif's study, there was a wide range ofstandards that the participants created. The smallest standard for the range ofmovement for the light was about one inch. By contrast, the largest standardwas about 7 inches. Once an individual established a subjective standard, he orshe continued to use that standard in subsequent experimental sessions.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

A group "norm" for judgment.Sherif's next concern was to discover what wouldoccur if individuals performed the task in groups. In the groups, theparticipants announced their estimates, one by one, in one another's presence.We can hypothesize two possible results for this study. As you recall, thelight does not actually move. Instead, the movement that someone observes isactually a result of his or her own unique visual system. Thus, one possibleresult for the study could be that each participant would "see" verydifferent amounts of movement. If this happened, each person would have apersonal standard for judgment, and the other group members would not influencethis standard.

A second possibility could be that each person, having no standard to beginwith, would instead look to other group members for an idea of how to judge themovement. The individual judgments would then start to influence one another.This would result in a group standard that all members would adopt.

Sherif asked some participants to begin the studyby performing one series of judgments alone. He then asked them to work ingroups of two or three and do three more series of judgments, doing each serieson a different day. Some of the groups were made up of participants who hadcreated very diverse subjective standards during their individual judgments.When these people came together in groups, they showed marked convergence oftheir standards during the very first series of evaluations. Their standardscontinued to converge during their second and third series of trials together.However, their ideas of criteria never completely converged. This implies thattheir original, individual standards still had some effect as they workedtogether. Nevertheless, it was also clear that the group had created a norm forjudgment.

Sherif asked a second sample of participants tomake three series of judgments in groups and then to do one series alone. Inthis case, the group members established a very close convergence of theirindividual standards almost immediately. Their ideas converged more so than atany time for the previous groups. After convergence, the group norm forjudgment averaged about three to four inches. Further, the groups retainedtheir initial norms throughout the other two group sessions. In the individualtrials, the participants further continued to use the same group norms for judgment.This occurred even when the individual trials occurred as much as six monthsafter the group sessions. Divergence among the participants' judgments didbegin to occur during the end of the individual series. It would be interestingto discover how much more divergence from the group norm would have occurred ifthe participants had performed more individual sessions.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Sherif's conclusions. Sherif argued quite convincingly that his results are anexample of private acceptance and not an example of compliance. First, Sherif showed that the only standard for judgment in hisstudy was "social reality." This was unlike Asch'sstudy. In Asch's experiment, the perceptualdifference between the standard and the line that the confederates"chose" was objectively clear. It was so clear that more than 99percent of the time the control groups made correct judgments. In Sherif's study, on the other hand, the standard forjudgment came only from the "reality" that the group created. It wasnot objective. In fact, we can liken Sherif'sexperiment to an accuracy task, such as the one we described in Chapter 2 whenwe examined Gordon's work. For Gordon's task, the average of the participants'judgments was the best answer. If we make such a comparison, the participants'"strategy" of convergence would be optimal in Sherif'sstudy. Second, Sherif's participants continued to usethe group standard in subsequent individual sessions. This implies that theyactually believed in the group's opinion.

Much later, in 1961, Sherif conducted furtherresearch. In these studies, the participants "accidentally" overheardanother participant's judgment while they waited to make their own. Theparticipants never met each other. Even so, the judgments of the participantsapproximated the ones that they had overheard. It is unlikely that people wouldmerely be complying in such a circ*mstance. There was no group pressure for theparticipants to conform to the standard that they had heard.

We can further clarify the differences between the Aschand Sherif studies by comparing the demands that thestudies made on the participants. In the Aschstudies, the perceptual task was clear enough that the participants should havebeen certain of the correct answers. Of course, the unified response of theconfederates was bound to make the participants less certain. However, despitethis fact, the participants found Asch's perceptualtask very clear. The test was so unambiguous that most of the participantsrarely questioned their perception. They either stuck to their guns a majorityof the time, or they complied to save face, not because they mistrusted theirsenses.

In the Sherif studies, the perceptual task was sovague that most participants did not have much confidence in their judgments.Research on other topics has shown what happens when people are uncertain abouttheir judgments or decisions. They react by looking elsewhere for informationthat could help them. In Sherif's experiment, theonly place the participants could go for additional information was to oneanother. In fact, the people in Sherif's experimentshould have had more confidence in the group's standard for judgment. It wasnatural that they looked to the group for help. This led to the participants'private acceptance of the group standard. In contrast, the only participants inthe Asch study who came to trust the group judgmentmore than their own were those who privately accepted the wrong line ascorrect.

Thus far, we have considered conformity an individual process. We have shownthat individuals often place themselves under great pressure to conform whenthey face a disagreeing majority. This internal pressure may lead people toconform merely in their behavior because they desire to impress a group orbelong to it. This kind of conformity is compliance. The personal pressure mayinstead lead people to conform in attitude also. This private acceptance couldoccur because people desire to maintain consistency or to lower uncertaintyabout their cognitions. Whether a person submits to this pressure is anindividual decision.

However, we must not overlook the fact that normal group settings are unlikethe Asch and Sherifstudies. A group can add to this internal pressure by putting a great deal ofovert pressure on dissenters to make them conform or, in some cases, tocontinue to deviate. Now we will move on to a general discussion of deviance.As part of this examination, we will describe a study concerning the forms thatgroup pressure can take.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

DEVIANCE

Why Deviate?

As we said before, the first and foremost reason people conform is thatgroup members must do so to make decisions. The foremost reason for deviance ingroups relates to this idea. People deviate so that the group can make gooddecisions. It is unlikely that a group's first proposal is the best that it canpossibly make. However, the group cannot make better proposals if members areunwilling to question the first suggestion.

No matter how many members support a given proposal, deviants should speakup. They should attempt to point out the weaknesses of the proposal and thecomparative strengths of alternative solutions. When this happens, at the veryleast, the advocates of a given proposal will need to defend their position. Inturn, this defense will have the positive result of giving the group a greaterunderstanding of the proposal and its implications, even if nothing else comesof the deviant's viewpoint. In addition, the criticism from the deviants maylead to improvements in the plan, or, in some cases, it may persuade themajority to explore other possibilities before they accept the given proposal.

Even if a group unanimously supports an idea, it is to the group's advantageto have a member play "devil's advocate." A devil's advocate is notreally a deviant. It is a person who may not disagree with the group consensusbut who does not think that the agreed-upon proposal has undergone enoughexamination. In such a role, a person will voice criticism and point outpossible weaknesses that he or she may not even truly feel are problems. Thedevil's advocate does this to ensure that the proposal has undergone a stiffevaluation before the group approves it.

Deviance can lead to conflict within groups. We can distinguish between twotypes of group conflict: constructive conflict and destructiveconflict. Constructive conflict occurs when group members carefully weigh thestrengths and weaknesses of proposals. Deviants and devil's advocates cancontribute to constructive conflict by challenging any consensus that formsaround one of the proposals. Constructive conflict prevents groups fromprematurely adopting any proposal. It increases the number of options thatgroups consider and ensures that the strengths and weaknesses of each areadequately discussed. Constructive conflict can also heighten group members'interest and involvement in the group's discussion. To participate fully inconstructive conflict, group members must be dedicated to choosing the proposalthat is best for the entire group.

In contrast, destructive conflict occurs when members do not have the bestinterest of the group in mind. The group is diverted from thoughtfullyanalyzing all its options. For example, power struggles or personality disputesamong group members can disrupt deliberation. In these cases, members attemptto "win out" over one another rather than reach a mutually acceptableconsensus. Destructive conflict can even occur when members want to make thebest decision for everybody but disagree about how to do so. In thiscirc*mstance, discussion can bog down in endless debate about what the groupought to be doing.

Engaging in constructive conflict is to the group's advantage if memberswant to make a high-quality decision, although it may come at the expense of groupsatisfaction. A study by Wall, Galanes, and Love(1987) supports this claim. The researchers asked 24 four- to seven-memberstudent groups to develop a list of five topics for workshops for new studentsand to rank-order the five for importance. The researchers studied theinteraction of these groups and counted as conflict any disagreement amongthree or more people that lasted for more than two statements. They also ratedeach disagreement as constructive or destructive conflict. The quality of the groups'work was judged to be best for groups that generally had constructive conflict,became worse for groups the more they had destructive conflict, and was worstfor groups with no conflict. The "constructive" groups, however,tended to have more conflict than the "destructive" groups, and themore conflict groups had, the less satisfied their members were with theirexperience. Thus, the groups with constructive conflict did the best work butwere least satisfied, the groups with no conflict did the worst work but weremost satisfied, and the groups with destructive conflict were intermediate onboth variables.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Good and Bad Deviance
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

At the beginning of this chapter, we differentiated between types ofconformity that were usually bad versus those that were usually good. We calledthe former "compliance" and the latter "privateacceptance." Based on some work by Merton (1957), we can make similardistinctions regarding deviant behavior. Merton's hypothesis rests on how agroup member reacts to the group's goal and the group's means for reaching thisgoal. If a group member accepts both the goal and the means, the person has conformed.What Merton called conformity corresponds to what we have called privateacceptance. When a member accepts the group's goal but rejects its means forreaching it, that is known as innovation. Itis undoubtedly, in most cases, good for the group. This is an example of thekind of constructive deviance that we have described so far in this section.For example, Judy is in a group that decorates rooms for parties. If she agreeswith the group goal, to decorate, and also believes in the way the groupdecorates, always with pink colors, Judy conforms. On the other hand, Judy mayone day say that she thinks the group should use other colors, even though shestill likes the group goal of decorating. In that case, Judy is beinginnovative.

On the other hand, a group member can reject the group's goal but accept itsmeans for reaching it. This is ritualism. In other words, the member"goes through the motions." Merton considers this a form of deviance,although it approximates what we have called compliance. Finally, members mayreject both group goals and means. One way they can do this is by dropping outentirely, which Merton calls retreatism. Another way to substitute new, personal goals, as well as the meansto reach them. This is rebellion. For instance, Judy coulddecide that she does not like decorating, but because she needs a job and doesnot mind the group, she continues decorating rooms. Judy behaves ritually,going through the work without really thinking about what ideas lie behind it. Finally, she may decide that she no longercan follow the group at all. She retreats, and leaves it entirely. On the otherhand, if Judy decides that she likes her group but does not like the businessof decorating rooms, then she could rebel. She might ask the group if theywould like to go into other work, such as preparing gourmet food for theparties.

It is retreatism and rebellion that the groupusually considers bad deviance. However, we need to be careful not tomisinterpret this judgment. If a group member sincerely believes that a group'sgoals are wrong, he or she should either get out or rebel. This is a healthyreaction. However, the retreating or rebellious member must expect that thegroup will view him or her negatively. This is how we should interpret the ideathat retreatism and rebellion are bad behaviors. Theyare unwelcome from the standpoint of the group, which loses members or becomes very disrupted when they occur.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Group Pressure
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Deviants should not be surprised if the group puts unmistakable constraintson them to conform. Scientists have researched the pressure that groups applyto innovative and rebellious deviants. The results have shown that thispersuasive force is quite predictable in its amount and type. Schachter performed a classic experiment (1951) thatexplored this issue.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Group Pressure Toward Conformity

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Schachter was concerned with the extent to which groups direct communication toward dissenters. Heconcentrated his research this way because he worked under a particularassumption. The assumption was that groups intend for their communication tochange a deviate's opinions. Thus, communication is equal to pressure from thegroup. The reason for this is that groups desire to change a dissenter's ideasso that they are consistent with those of the majority. Schachterbelieved that the amount of communication that a group directs toward adissenter is a result of two factors: internal group pressure and dependence ofthe group on the deviant member.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Internal Group Pressure
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The first factor is the extent to which the group feels its own internalpressure to change the dissenter's opinion. In other words, how important is itto the group to change the person's ideas? This kind of pressure should rise asthe amount of disagreement that the group perceives it has with the personincreases. Interestingly, Schachter hypothesized thisas a curvilinear relationship. Pressure and disagreement do not exactly go handin hand. Instead, Schachter felt that pressureincreases more slowly as disagreement becomes stronger.

For example, Mark joins a tennis group. The group is very formal and runsits own tournaments. Mark starts to wear street shoes when he plays. The grouptries to pressure him to wear tennis shoes instead. Next, Mark begins to arguewith line judges. He disrupts the normal tranquillityof the games. The group feels more strongly that it needs to bring Mark"back in line." Soon, however, Mark is not playing full games, and heoften leaves in a huff. When this higher level of disagreement is reached, thegroup still thinks it should pressure Mark to conform, but the feelings of thegroup are not much stronger than when Mark started to argue in the first place.The group is beginning to wonder if it is worth the effort to make Markconform.

The group's internal pressure to change a dissenter's opinion also usuallyrises as the cohesiveness of the group and the importance of the task to thegroup increase. For instance, if the tennis group really enjoys being togetherand they think of Mark as a group member, they will fight harder to make himconform to their ideal. Also, if the group feels that playing tennis in a"formal" way is very important, they will work harder to keep Mark inline.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Dependence of the Group
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The second factor regarding how much a group will communicate persuasivelyto a dissenter is the degree to which the group feels that it depends upon thedeviant member. Schachter theorized that asdisagreement increases, a group should feel less dependent upon a dissenter'sinput. In effect, the group rejects the member. For example, if Mark starts tomiss meets entirely and swears continually at judges, the group may tell himthat he can no longer play tennis with them. The level of disagreement hasbecome so high that the group no longer wants to tolerate Mark.

Again, Schachter saw this as a curvilinearrelationship with dependence decreasing at a faster pace as disagreementbecomes worse. In addition, high levels of cohesiveness and devotion to thetask mean that the group's dependence on a deviant who creates many problemswill decrease. For example, it may be that Mark's group enjoys being togetherand playing formal tennis very much. In this case, if Mark becomes disagreeableto the point where he endangers these group enjoyments, it is likely that thegroup will depend on Mark less and less.

We can predict the result of these offsetting forces. As we have noted, theamount of pressure that a group feels toward persuading a dissenter willincrease along with the perceived disagreement. As disagreement and feltpressure increase, communication toward the dissenter attempting to persuadehim or her to conform will also increase. However, this will happen only untilthe group reaches the point where it begins to depend less on the dissenter.When this happens, the decrease in the group's feeling of dependence willcompensate for its internal pressure. Thereafter, communication will decreaseif the perceived disagreement continues to rise. Increasing levels of pressurewill be offset by decreasing dependence levels.

For example, Mark's group will communicate with him, trying to persuade himto conform, only until they see him deviate so much that they feel the groupcan no longer depend on him. When this happens, the group will not bothertrying to communicate with Mark anymore. Figure 6.1 illustrates therelationship between the forces.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

FIGURE 6.1
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Schachter also assumed that continued groupinteraction will lead a group to become more aware of disagreement when asignificant degree of deviation exists than the group might otherwise havebeen. Thus, when a group increases the time it spends interacting, we canexpect a similar rise in perceived disagreement. This causes communication tothe dissenter first to increase and then decrease over the course of a groupmeeting.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Schachter's Methodology
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Schachter informed his study participants thatthey were assigned to one of four "clubs." In the clubs, they wouldstudy the topics of "case study," "editorials,""movies," or "radio." The "case study" and"movie" clubs consisted of participants who had expressed interest inthose topics. Schachter hoped that this manipulationwould lead to high group cohesiveness. In contrast, the "editorial"and "radio" clubs had participants who were uninterested. Schachter expected these groups to be low in cohesion. Datashowed that these manipulations did affect cohesiveness, as they were intendedto do.

Between 8 and 10 participants showed up for the first meeting of each club.During this first meeting, Schachter asked the clubmembers to help on another project that he was doing. He gave them the casestudy of "Johnny Rocco." Johnny was a juvenile delinquent, guilty ofa minor crime. Their task was to decide on a policy for dealing with him.Should they send him for help and counseling or put him in jail? The groups had45 minutes to decide Johnny's fate. After the discussion, the researcher toldthe members to nominate one another for positions on committees. The committeeshad varying degrees of importance to the club. Finally, the club members ratedthe degree to which they wished one another to remain in the club. This endedthe meeting and the experiment.

What was going on? First, Schachter chose theJohnny Rocco case because it was relevant to the "case study" and"editorial" clubs but not to the"movie"and "radio" groups. He thus created a second type of manipulation forthe study. Table 6.1 shows the conditions in the groups to which the manipulationled.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The different conditions allowed Schachter to testhis hypothesis regarding the ways in which relevance and cohesiveness canaffect groups. He wanted to see if they affect whether a group feels"internal" pressure to have members conform. This was the firstreason Schachter set up the experiment the way thathe did.

Second, three "members" of each club were actually confederates.They had assigned roles to play during the discussion. One confederate was thedeviant. He or she was to argue at all times for the alternative that themajority of the participants most strongly opposed. In most cases, this meantthat the deviant argued for Johnny Rocco to serve a long jail sentence, whilethe participants argued for Johnny to get counseling. A second confederateplayed the role of the norm. This person was to verbally support thealternative that the group accepted. The third confederate was the slider. Heor she was to begin by deviating but then move toward agreeing with the group'sviewpoint as discussion continued.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Schachter's Results
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

One answer that Schachter sought to discover washow the real participants felt about the confederates at the end of themeetings. He did so by analyzing the committee nominations that theparticipants made, as well as their feelings concerning the confederates. Asone would expect, the real participants saw the deviant as a less desirablegroup member than either the norm or the slider. In the highly cohesive groups,this discrepancy was particularly marked. The groups nominated the deviant forthe lowly "correspondence" committee more often than chance would allow.Similarly, members wanted the deviant in the prestigious "executive"committee less often than chance would predict. In contrast, the groupsnominated the norm and the slider confederates equally often for allcommittees. Clearly, other group members looked unfavorably on the deviant.

Schachter also wanted to see how muchcommunication the groups directed toward the norm, the slider, and the deviant.To do so, he measured the amount of communication that the participantsdirected to the confederates during four time periods in the meeting. Thisallowed him to observe whether any changes occurred as the meetings progressed.

The results were only partly consistent with expectations. The total amountof communication that the group directed toward the deviant was highest for the"case study" clubs, which had the highest cohesiveness and relevancelevels. This was what Schachter expected. However,the low-cohesive and low-relevancy "radio" clubs had the secondhighest amount of communication. This was not what Schachterpredicted. He thought that these groups would have the least communicationtoward the deviant out of all four conditions.

Further, the amount of communication toward the dissenter became greaterover time in most cases. Schachter had predicted thatthe amount of communication toward the deviant would increase for a while butthen begin to decrease as the group members lost their willingness to toleratethe deviant. Only the high-cohesive and high-relevancy groups fit in with thistheory.

These results suggest that Schachter was correctin some of his assumptions but not all. It is true that increased amounts oftime interacting led to increased perceptions of disagreement. This, in turn,caused a higher level of pressure to change the deviant. However, theoffsetting tendencies--to reject the deviant when the disagreement became verystrong--occurred only in the special condition of a highly cohesive group thatis performing a relevant task.

Finally, the communication that the group directed toward the otherconfederates--the norm and slider members--occurred as Schachterexpected. The group directed very little communication toward the normthroughout the meeting. The amount of communication from the group toward theslider approximated the level it used toward the deviant during the beginningof the meeting. By the end of the meeting, however, the persuasivecommunication toward the slider decreased until it was similar to the amountthat the norm member received.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Refining Schachter's Interpretations
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Later research has refined the knowledge that scientists gained from Schachter's experiment. First, it is quite clear now that,with tasks that require a group to reach a consensus, the amount ofcommunication that a group directs toward a deviant rises along withdisagreements. Scientists have found that as the level of disagreement betweenthe deviant and the group increases, so too does the communication.

Second, studies have shown that the type of communication that membersdirect toward a deviant changes over time. At the beginning, the group attemptsto persuade the deviant to privately accept the group's opinion. The group doesso by placing ever more attention upon the deviant. Group members accomplishthis by focusing more and more remarks at the deviant, by talking about him orher, and by facing and directing their eye gaze at the deviant. This is a mostuncomfortable experience for people who play the role of the dissenter both inexperiments and in real groups. This situation changes, however, as time passesand the group comes to feel pressured to complete the task. The group membersshift their arguments toward the deviant. They appeal to him or her to complyso that the group can claim a consensus and finish its task. A group member, inessence, might say to the dissenter, "Please, just go along with us sothat we can do our job."

Ultimately, as time pressure continues to increase for the members, thegroup often begins to ignore the deviant. This is what Schachterpredicted would happen. When the group gives up hope of persuading thedissenter to conform, the members turn away from the deviant and direct theirentire attention toward one another. Scientists have called this "symbolicexclusion." The group acts as if the deviating member were not there. Insome cases, actual exclusion occurs when the other members ask the dissenter toleave the group.

Finally, Schachter's research revealed evidencethat the group will look on the deviant badly and treat him or her roughly ifhe or she deviates more strongly than the other group members will tolerate.Studies by scientists who replicated and extended Schachter'swork also support this result. The finding implies that groups do not wantdissenters unless they regard the dissenters as innovative.

However, other evidence has shown that this conclusion is not necessarilythe case. As we will show in the following discussion, the functionalperspective maintains that rebellious or retreating deviants can play usefulroles in groups.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The FunctionalPerspective

According to Dentler and Erikson(1959), we should not take the fact that groups react negatively to deviantmembers to mean that those members cannot serve a positive function in thegroup. Through their research and theorizing, Dentlerand Erikson intended to show that there could bevalue in rebellion or retreat from a functional standpoint. They felt that thepresence of rebellion or retreatism can be good for agroup, even if it is perhaps not necessary for a group's existence. Theyoutlined their claims in the following three hypotheses:

1. Groups tend to induce, sustain, and permit deviant behaviors. With thisidea, Dentler and Eriksondid not mean to say that groups cause deviancy. What they meant is that, if thepotential exists for deviant behavior on the part of a member, the group tendsto channel it to its advantage. It does this rather than attempting toeliminate the deviancy.

2. Deviant behavior functions to help groups maintain a healthy emotionalclimate. The specific maintenance advantages that a rebellious member can bringto a group include the following:

a. Many things can lead to a buildup of tensions and hostility among groupmembers. These things include task-oriented disagreements, pressure fromoutside the group, and dislike among the members. A group can use a retreatingor rebellious member as the target for the expression of these problematicemotions. In essence, the members use the deviant as a scapegoat. This allowsthem to drain their emotions onto the deviant and return to the task at hand.

b. What a group considers to be conforming behavioris actually a range of behaviors. At one end of the range is behavior that istotally consistent with existing norms. At the other end is action thatdeviates from these norms just enough for the group to consider it intolerable.When a deviant goes beyond the boundary between approved and disapprovedbehavior, he or she is, in effect, informing the group about its own norms. Inthis way, the members discover the boundary between approved and disapprovedbehavior. For example, Sam works with a group that paints houses. One day hethins the paint more than he should to save money. When he does so, the groupreacts by realizing that his behavior is outside the group's norm. Sam helpsthe group know the limits of its norms regarding shoddy workmanship. Also, whenthe group members punish a dissenter, they find out how much power the grouphas over member behavior and the types of punishment that the group can meteout to deviants.

c. The deviant serves as a basis for comparison that the group can use. Themembers can look at their own abilities, contributions to the group, andrewards from group participation in comparison with how the deviant memberbehaves. This idea is consistent with social comparison theory. The members seethe deviant's performance and resulting punishment. As they do so, they canpositively evaluate themselves and the rewards that they get from group membership.This will increase personal satisfaction for conforming group members.

d. The deviant supplies a group with a problem that the group needs tosolve. The members can unite against this problem as they try to do somethingabout it. They will attempt to bring about conformity in the deviant. Theirattempt can serve as a "rallying point" for coordinated groupactivity. Thus, the presence of a dissenter allows the members to express andnurture group cohesion.

3. Groups resist trends toward the alienation of deviant members. Contraryto Schachter's proposal, this claim is supported bythe finding that it is rare that group activity will totally exclude deviantmembers. Of course, constant deviance can begin to endanger a group'scohesiveness. Instead, the group must strive to maintain the deviance to alevel just a bit over the boundary between approved and disapproved behavior.In this way, the members can continue to take advantage of the presence of thedeviant. When there is too much conformity, the group loses the advantages thatdeviance can bring to it. When there is too much deviance, on the other hand,the group cannot function if the deviant continues to be present.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Conclusion: Good andBad Conformity and Deviance

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

In conclusion, it appears that our natural tendency to evaluate bothconformity and deviance as negative behaviors is a mistake. These behaviors arenot inherently bad. In fact, they describe situations that we all face duringall our lives. Any time a group member faces a choice between a popular optionand an unpopular one, he or she must either conform or deviate.

We can say, however, that there are good and bad types of both conformityand deviance, as long as we note the exceptions to these judgments. Conformityis usually good for a group when all members privately accept the majoritychoice. The exception to this hypothesis is when members privately accept anoption that the group has not properly evaluated. Such unquestioning acceptancecan lead to a disastrous decision. In contrast, it is usually bad for a groupwhen members conform to the majority choice against their better judgment.Exceptions exist to this rule also, such as during emergencies when the groupbest serves its function by acting on any decision it can reach.

Deviance can be healthy for groups as well. Deviance is most often good forgroups when the deviants are innovative. However, again, the exception to thisis that emergencies often require compliance. It is bad for a group if a memberretreats or rebels, except when that group's goals need revision. Also, if Dentler and Erikson are correct,the group can often reap benefits from "controlled rebellion."
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

MINORITY INFLUENCE

Thus far in this chapter, we have largely ignored one possible outcome of thesituation in which a group majority faces one or two deviants. Although groupdeviants can change the opinions of the group majority, we should not expectthis to happen often. As we discussed in Chapter 2, research using mock juriessuggests that majority opinion wins out about 90 percent of the time. Peoplewith minority viewpoints usually feel great pressure to conform with the majority, and normally they comply or come toprivately accept the majority view. This is the expected tendency. However, weshould not forget that, at times, the minority can also successfully exertpersuasive forces upon the majority. In the mock jury research minorities weresuccessful persuaders about 5 percent of the time.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Moscoviciet al. Study

Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux (1969) showed the potential of a minority overa majority. Their study was an imaginative reworking of the Aschprocedure. In the Moscovici et al. experiment, thegroup's minority, rather than the majority, were confederates.

In the study, six-member groups participated in an experiment in "colorperception." The experimenters showed the groups a series of 36 slides andasked them to judge the color of each. All slides were blue. However, in onecondition, two confederates incorrectly claimed that every slide was green. Theresearchers were interested to see how often the four real participants in eachgroup said "green." The results showed that 32 percent of the realparticipants said "green" at least once. Out of the total responses,8.42 percent were "green."

Moscovici et al. crafted a second test conditionin which the confederates were not consistent in their responses. They wouldsay "green" for only 24 out of the 36 blue slides. In this condition,the "green" responses from the real participants dropped to only 1.25percent. Thus we can conclude that the minority had a slight, immediate effecton the majority if the minority gave consistent responses.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

LongTerm Effects of Minorities
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

The researchers next separated the participants from the groups. When theywere alone, the experimenters asked each person to judge the color of a seriesof ambiguous blue-green slides. The people tended to say that the slides weregreen, and they particularly did this when they had been in groups where the confederateswere consistent. Thus, it appears that the consistent minority had not only aslight immediate effect but also a significant long-term effect on thejudgments of the participants. The consistent minority was able to make"green" a reasonable judgment in an ambiguous situation.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Differences Between Minority and Majority Influence

<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Moscovici and others have used this experiment andsubsequent studies as a basis for further investigations. They have found thatit is true that majorities have a greater influence on members than minorities.However, the researchers have also determined that minority influence doesoccur. In addition, they have discovered that the types of influences that minoritiesand majorities have are different.

The influences that a majority has often lead to compliance. For instance,members of a minority often join with the majority because they want themajority to look favorably upon them and accept them. They may also believethat the majority must be correct simply by virtue of being the majority. Theseactions tend not to be the result of a careful consideration of the issues athand. Thus conformity with the majority is often mere compliance.

In contrast, minority influence tends to lead to private acceptance. Thisonly takes place when the minority is consistent and displays confidence in theaccuracy of its views. Under these circ*mstances, the minority can persuade themajority to examine the relevant issues more closely than it had previously. Ifthis takes place, it becomes possible to change opinions. Researchers havefound, however, that it usually takes some time for the changes to occur.Sometimes they appear in subsequent decisions.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Maass and Clark Study
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

A study by Maass and Clark (1983) supported theseclaims. In their experiment, uncommitted participants read summaries ofimaginary five-person group discussions on gay rights. The summaries statedthat a majority of four supposedly defended one side of the issue and that aminority of one member defended a contrasting viewpoint. The researchers thenasked the participants to express their own attitudes toward gay rights. Theytold half the participants that the group would learn of the participants' attitudes.People from this half changed their opinions to become more consistent with thegroup majority.

In contrast, the experimenters told the other half of the participants thattheir attitudes would remain secret. These people's beliefs moved toward thoseof the one deviant. In other words, majority influence led to compliance;minority influence led to private acceptance. When the participant had to gopublic with their opinions, they appeared to conform withthe majority. This behavior was compliance. However, their private attitudestended to conform with the minority.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Nemeth and Wachtler Study
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

In an essay published in 1986, Nemeth described another difference betweenmajority and minority influence. In her view, majorities induce group membersto focus all their attention on the position that the majority itself supports.In contrast, minorities stimulate the group to seriously consider otherpositions, ones that the majority does not support.

When a minority is present, it leads group members to think harder abouttheir decision. Not only can this kind of thinking lead group members toexamine more closely both the majority and the minority positions, it can alsostimulate the members to propose new positions. Thus, even when the group doesnot adopt the minority position, the presence of a minority in a group can helpimprove its decision making.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Study methodology. Nemeth and Wachtler(1983) performed a study that supported these ideas. The researchers placedpeople in six-member groups that consisted of confederates and participants."Majority" groups included two participants and four confederates."Minority" groups had four participants and two confederates.

Nemeth and Wachtler utilized another imaginativereworking of Asch's study. They showed the groupseight slides. Each slide included a "standard" figure and six"comparison" figures. As it was in the Aschstudy, each participant's task was to find the standard figure within as manyof the comparison figures as possible. The researchers called on theparticipants in the order in which they were sitting and told them to name outloud each comparison figure that they thought contained the standard.

Figure 6.2 shows an example of a slide that the researchers used in thestudy:
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

FIGURE 6.2
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

As you can see, judging one of the comparison figures, the one marked U, ascorrect was easy. The others, however, were much harder to judge.

In half the groups, the confederates chose two correct answers. They chose Uand then one of the more difficult, but correct,figures such as R. In the other groups, however, the confederates chose onecorrect answer and one wrong one. They chose U and then an incorrect figure,such as O. Whatever their answers, the confederates might be the majority orthe minority in the group.

Thus, groups had either majorities or minorities of confederates, and ineach group these minorities or majorities argued for either a correct answer oran incorrect one.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Study results. Nemeth and Wachtlerfound that the participants were more likely to follow the confederates whenthe confederates made up the majority in their groups rather than the minority.This was true whether the confederates gave right or wrong answers. In otherwords, the participants were more likely to choose both R (a correct answer)and O (an incorrect answer) if a confederate majority had chosen them than if aconfederate minority had done so.

The results were interesting, however, with the participants in groups thathad a minority of confederates. These participants were more likely togive other correct answers than were those in the groups with a majority ofconfederates. The other correct answers were the ones that they found on theirown, apart from the answers that the confederates gave. In other words, theparticipants who were in groups with a minority of confederates were relativelymore likely to discover that E and I were also correct answers. Thus thepresence of a minority opinion as opposed to a majority opinion was more likelyto stimulate the participants to search for other correct answers.

Further, participants in groups with a minority of confederates were notmore likely to choose incorrect answers, such as A, than those in groups with amajority of confederates. This finding implies that the participants in groupswith a "minority" opinion were not merely voicing different answerswhen their turns came to speak. Instead, they were more actively searching forcorrect answers than the participants in the "majority" groups.

As we have argued throughout this chapter, if a group is to makehigh-quality decisions, it must encourage the expression of minority opinionsand examine the value of alternative viewpoints. Nemeth's work is only one morepiece of evidence supporting the importance of this practice.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Trout, Maass, and KenrickStudy
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

Nemeth's work has shown that the presence of a minority opinion leads groupmembers to put more effort into their individual thinking about the group task.This thinking, however, may not lead to an increase in how much group membersagree with the minority opinion. Instead, it may cause the opposite. If theminority argues against something that is important to a group member, themember may think harder to find reasons that the minority opinion is wrong.This, in turn, makes the member believe even more strongly in his or heroriginal opinion.

Trout, Maass, and Kenrick(1992) performed a study that is relevant to this issue. Students readarguments in support of comprehensive final exams for all graduating seniors.The arguments proposed two starting dates. In one case, the exams would startin one year, thereby making the issue relevant to the students' owngraduations. In the other case, the exams were to start in nine years, makingthe issue irrelevant to their own graduations.

Further, the researchers presented the arguments as if they were either theviewpoint of the majority of students on campus or of the minority. They thenasked the participants to rate their opinions about the issue, and to writedown any thoughts.

The overall results were consistent with Nemeth's theory. The"minority" opinion stimulated thought. The participants who believedthat they read an argument based on what the minority of students wanted wrotedown more thoughts than those who believed that they read something based onmajority opinion.

Further data showed interesting results for whether the participants'opinions and the content of their writing were for or against the argument.Those who read the "majority" argument wrote an equal number ofthoughts both for and against it. In addition, their opinions tended to beslightly in favor of the proposed plan they read. The results for those whor*ad the "minority" argument, however, depended on how relevant theissue was to them. When the issue was not relevant to their own graduation, thefindings for the participants who read the "minority" opinion wereconsistent with earlier studies. These participants wrote thoughts that weremore likely to be for the proposal than against it. Also, their opinions tendedto be clearly in favor of the plan. Thus, when the issue was not personallyrelevant, the argument that supposedly represented the minority of students wasmore likely to persuade the participants than the argument that supposedly camefrom the ''majority."

When the issue was relevant to the participants' own graduation, however,the findings were very different. After reading a "minority"argument, these participants wrote thoughts that were more likely to be againstthe proposal than for it. In addition, the "minority" arguments didnot change their opinions. Thus, when the issue was personally relevant, theargument that they found most persuasive was the one that supposedlyrepresented the majority of students, not the minority. The"minority" opinion did lead them to think harder about the proposal,but the thoughts were negative.
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>
<![endif]>

SUMMARY

In a group setting, the majority of the group often favors one particularcourse of action when the group faces two or more possibilities. When thishappens, group members can choose either to conform withthe group or to deviate from the majority. Neither choice is inherently good orbad. A person's judgment about the value of conformity or deviance shoulddepend on the reasons a member behaves in this way. For example, a group membermay conform simply to do what the group wants. We call this compliance.Compliance is usually bad for the group in the sense that the group is notgetting the full benefit of hearing and evaluating opposing views. However,there are times, such as in emergencies, when quick compliance is necessary.

A member might instead conform because he or she sincerely agrees with the group majority. We call this type of conformityprivate acceptance. It is usually good for a group. However, quick acceptanceof a course of action without proper evaluation can be disastrous.

The distinction between compliance and private acceptance is somewhat murkyat times. This happens because people who begin by complying tend to comeeventually to privately accept the majority view.

Overall, conformity is necessary for a group to reach a decision. However, agroup requires deviance to reach a good decision. Without deviance, memberswill accept the group's first proposal without proper evaluation.

As with conformity, there are good and bad forms of deviance. Innovationoccurs when members propose alternative ways of reaching the group's goal. Itis generally good for the group. The exception is a situation that requiresquick action. Retreatism takes place when membersdrop out of the group. Rebellion happens when a person disagrees with thegroup's goal. Both are usually bad for the group. However, there are times whena group's goal may indeed be wrong.

Groups apply pressure upon deviants to make the deviants conform. Thispressure may begin as subtle attempts to persuade the deviant to privatelyaccept the majority view. However, it can escalate to direct efforts to gaincompliance. These efforts can even reach the level of threats or exclusion fromthe group. Some theorists believe that groups also apply pressure on certainmembers to rebel. They do this because rebellious members serve some positivefunctions for the group.

Finally, group members holding a minority viewpoint can influence members inthe majority. The type of influence that minorities can exert, however, isdifferent from the kind that majorities usually exert. Group members who movetheir opinions toward the majority are often merely complying with themajority. In contrast, the influence of minorities tends to lead members towarda public acceptance of the minority point of view. Further, the presence of aminority helps stimulate group members to think deeply about issues. This oftenleads members to present new proposals and come to higher quality decisionsthan they would have if the minority viewpoint had not been present. Overall,however, group majorities tend to have greater influence over members thangroup minorities do.