Groupthink And Conformity

In last week’s article, I looked at how being part of a group effects the way that people think, act, and behave i.e., that when somebody identifies as belonging to a group, whether that’s a temporary (such as joining in with looting during or riot), semi-permanent or permanent thing (being a member of a formal or informal gang), the group can influence the way they think etc., and redefine their identity. In last week’s blog, I detailed two theories that go some way to explaining why someone might act differently when they are part of a group compared to how they would behave if they were on their own etc. As always, it is worth looking at how a mix of theories may contribute to the explanation of someone’s behavior(s) rather than simply looking at one to offer a complete and full explanation e.g., there may be a degree of Deindividuation (the anonymity that a group offers), and a degree of “Risky Shift” (behaving in a more extreme way because of a belief that this is what other group members want), that explain why an individual engages in activities that they wouldn’t if on their own – such as looting, rioting and/or acting violently etc. In this article I want to look at two other theories (Groupthink (Janis, 1972) and Conformity (Asch, 1951)) that can help explain how/why people act differently/violently when they are part of a group.     

The term Groupthink was first coined by Janis (1972) to describe a phenomenon whereby individuals give up their own evaluation and decision-making processes, and accept the viewpoint of the group e.g., if the group believes an individual or group is bad/wrong/dangerous then rather than evaluate whether this is actually the case, the individual simply accepts what they perceive to be the group’s position etc. This can occur when a “new” member of the group – who wants to identify with the group – feels like they lack the experience and knowledge to make their own accurate evaluation of something and so feel/believe that they are better off simply accepting the group’s decision, which someone who went through the same process as them, is informing them on etc. This is something I have experienced in my time training with different Krav Maga associations, where certain members have informed me that they are the only true/authentic association and the others are imitators, fakes etc., based on certain pieces of information and history, that they are aware of – there are of course practitioners who do think independently and acknowledge the legitimacy of others who are not members of their group/organization, and understand why others think the way that they do etc. Certain personalities are more susceptible to Groupthink than others i.e., there are people who need there to be absolute and certain truths in their lives. People who have rigid thinking patterns, who look to remove the grey areas of life and see the world in black and white terms, may fall prey to Groupthink. If the group can present a world view where members of the group are “right”, and non-members are “wrong”, then any ambiguities are removed, and the individual doesn’t have to go through the process of trying to make sense of things in absolute terms, themselves. Groupthink is often linked to cults and sects, where a strong leader tells the members of the group what/how to think, and believe etc. Often, when people think about cult members, they believe them to be “stupid” for falling for the message and beliefs of the group however this would be an incorrect assumption. It is not that such members are stupid – many are highly intelligent – they just need to see the world in absolute terms and being a member of the group allows them to do so.

Asch (1951) was interested in how individuals conformed to social pressure. To study this, he put a subject in a group of seven confederates (people who were aware/involved in the experiment) and presented a series of challenges/questions where the answers were obvious. The confederates had been told beforehand that they would deliberately agree wrongly on twelve out of the eighteen tasks. The questions posed to the group were designed to isolate conformity – i.e. they were simple questions with objective and obvious answers. The question was, would the subject agree with them (conform to social pressure) or choose to be the only one who stuck to, and maintained the right answer. Around 32% of subjects stuck with the group answer consistently, and around 75% of participants did so on at least one. Social pressure is a powerful thing, especially when other members of the group are insistent or put a lot of energy into convincing and/or reinforcing the group’s viewpoint etc. If everybody in a group is behaving/acting in a certain way, it is difficult not to succumb to the pressure to conform i.e., it takes strong almost unshakeable convictions to either not have doubts about a decision, and/or to behave in a way that is different to everybody else. This is especially true if an individual wishes to be seen as part of a group, where they may at times – just like 75% of those in Asch’s experiment who conformed at least once – feel the pressure to act and behave in ways that they wouldn’t normally. Conformity and social pressure go a long way to explaining why normally good kids sometimes do bad things etc. Humans are social creatures and most have a need to fit in and be part of something larger, which may mean at times conforming in ways that they wouldn’t normally/inherently.

In the past two articles I’ve described four theories that attempt to explain how the group influences its members. All of these examine facets of group behavior and look to describe particular phenomena that might be at play however they are better understood as contributing to behavior rather than explaining it fully e.g., in certain situations conformity/social pressure may play more of a role than deindividuation/anonymity, and in others “risky shift” may be more of an influence than groupthink etc. Another factor that is going to play a part is how strong and persuasive other members arguments, beliefs and actions are, and the degree to which somebody wishes to be part of the group etc. However, one thing we should understand is that being part of a group, even if the group forms in the moment (such as in a riot or disturbance), is likely to influence its member’s actions, making groups where violence is concerned less predictable entities.