Peer pressure

Peer pressure (even groups or pressure to conform, Eng. Among other peer pressure) is the trigger for a change in behavior or attitude of people within an over matched group. Often the person in question shows behaviors within the group, especially since behavioral adaptation often applies to the group norms as a condition of membership.

Factors

Normative influence

People behave in conformity with groups because they want to make a desired impression on others. Many people feel uncomfortable or unsafe if they represent different opinions than the majority of the group. You mean so that when other group members antipathy and aversion cause. The normative influence, therefore means that people behave in conformity to be assessed by people other than sympathetic. Also, the company may be seen as a group that tries to integrate off-types to be useful members to form (see Normative social influence ).

Informative influence

When people complete information is not available in certain situations, other individuals may serve as a source of information. Thus, the conformity comes from the fact that you want to eliminate a personal insecurity by relying on the opinion of the majority, and this also assumes under certain circumstances. The more difficult ( or unclear ) a situation is, the stronger is the conformity shown (see Informative social influence ).

Situation

If the group is in a difficult and hopeless situation, no one helps the group from the outside and there are no objective information, conformity pressure is increased.

Personality

If you have a high need for affirmation and certainty, as well as low self -esteem, the pressure to conform is also increased. You feel stronger and better in a group of outsiders.

Group

A strong sense of solidarity, belonging to a fringe group, a ranking and high consensus of views within a group increase the pressure to conform. The more of these factors apply, the higher the likelihood of a match to the group.

Research approaches

Famous people that explored the pressure to conform, are Muzafer Sherif (1935 ), William Foote Whyte (1943 ) and Solomon Asch ( 1951).

Muzafer Sherif used in 1935 a well-known phenomenon of a mirage movement for the study of group influence: the autokinetic effect. If a person is in a completely darkened room and is projected in front of her on a wall a stationary (ie fixed ) light, then this seems spot for the person to reciprocate.

Sherif led his original experiment on four consecutive days. On the first day, subjects were exposed only to the autokinetic effect. In a hundred passages they were asked how strongly the light move. Quick developed each subject an individual standard, eg between 8 and 10 inches, which fluctuated around the estimates of the passages. This individual standard differed partially widely between subjects.

After this single - passages on the first day, the experiment was on days two and four repeats in groups of, for example, three test subjects. The groups were now sitting together in the darkened room and had to estimate the motion of light.

As a result, it turned out that quickly began to form a group norm in the group passes. Although the individual standard of the three subjects initially differed greatly, all three sentences commuted in the group test one to a common mean value.

In a modification of the study Sherif was on the first day group passages and on the following three days run single passages. Here also developed on the first day a group norm - all members of the group hardly differed in their judgments. This group norm of the first day continued in the following solo passages. The subjects, once the group had adapted, they retained this adaptation.

Solomon Asch conducted in 1951 by its original conformity experiment. Here sat a number of people at a conference table. The research subject who entered this room, we were told that it was to other voluntary participants in the experiment. In truth, all those present were out of the subject confidante of the experimenter.

On a screen in front of this group, a line was presented. In addition to this reference line three more lines were displayed and it was the duty of the people to assess which of these three comparison lines was the same length as the reference line. It is important that at each pass one of the lines was very much the same length as the reference line ( see picture). In the control group, the confidant of the experimenter should express their true assessment in the group, which line the be of equal length. As expected, makes the subject sitting with the secret confidant at the table, in this condition, barely error (less than 1 %).

In the experimental group, respectively 18 estimates were held. While six of these passages the secret confidants were instructed to make a correct judgment ( to appear credible). During the remaining twelve passages ( randomly shuffled among the six correct ) should confidants unanimously make a false judgment. On average, now 37 % of the judgments of the subjects error, in about a third of the cases, the participants so the majority of fit ( despite an obvious mistake ). From the average of 37 % wrong decisions but can not be concluded that majority of the subjects had remained largely unaffected: 75 % of participants committed in the 12 manipulated passages at least one error - despite obvious wrong decision of the majority.

This original experiment was later replicated in a variety of versions. It was found that with increasing size of the group more conformity is produced. With increasing group size, the compliance rate asymptotically approaches a straight line.

If the unanimity of the secret confidant broken in a false judgment, as one of them judges nor false, the subjects commit considerably fewer errors. In this case, they seem to dare to express their right minority opinion, as other represented a minority opinion. A similar reduction in the rate of conformity leads social support: Is one of the confidants of the subject suggests, these almost always right on their assessment.

Published in October 2011, scientists from the Max Planck Institute ( MPI) for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig and for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen Netherlands a study that they had made at 96 four-year olds. Result: these children sometimes public support even a majority opinion when they actually think of it as wrong. The researchers conclude fundamental social considerations, such as the desire to be accepted by the group.