Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S., The Role of Attribution
Processes in Conformity and Dissent. American Psychologist, 1976,31,148-157.
Prior research confirmed Asch's findings in his seminal work on
conformity to group opinions by showing that one could increase conformity
by making the task more uncertain or adding a level of interdependence among
the group.
In the Asch experiments, the potential risks for dissent is far greater
than the loss of the group's approval -- his dissent is a direct challenge
to to competency of the group (which is hard for a person to do). Unlike
differences of opinion in things like movies and politics, people rarely
differ in opinions of objective reality.
Anytime a person has a similar "attribution crisis", the dissenter
is faced with two problems:
1. Why do they have different and apparently incorrect views, and to what
do I attribute this behavior?
2. How does my dissent appear the them, and what do they attribute my behavior?
In most everyday cases, people can usually find external forces and payoffs
to attribute behavior. In those situations, the person can internally "explain
away" their opinions, and thus is more comfortable with the differences
in opinion and more confident in his own.
Another situation would be when there is no obvious difference in external
forces or payouts with others having different opinions. Then the person
will first try to attribute those differences to differences in perception
of the forces and payoffs (those this won't be as satisfying as situational
explanations). The person then may reflect on one's own reasons for their
opinions and be willing to hold judgement until these "priority differences"
of forces and payoffs are resolved. Still, the conformity pressures are
held in check.
In the Asch experiment, the subject has no plausible situational or perceptual
differences in forces and payoffs to account for the majority dissention.
It's the most extreme attribution case.
The experiment in this paper tested the above three conditions:
1. Differences can be explained by situational differences in external forces
and payoffs.
2. Differences can be explained by perceptual differences in extrenal forces
and payoffs
3. Differences can't be explained by either situational or perceptual differences.
Procedure
In this study people had to decide which of two audible tones was longer.
The test was set up to produce the same amount of conformity as in the
Asch test (36% conformity to erroneous majority opinion).
There were four conditions
1. Control: Responses were written down by subjects.
2. Asch Situation: 3 Confederates periodically gave wrong answers. They
were told they would get 10 points for Tone 1 answer, and 10 points for
Tone 2 answer, and 0 points for a wrong answer.
3. Differing priorities: Each subject would get 10 points for each correct
response, but for certain special situations they would get 100 points for
guessing Tone 2 was longer but only 10 points for guessing Tone 1 was longer.
Incorrect responses were always 0 points.
4. Differing payoffs. In this case the special reward structure would only
apply to the confederates. the subject woul play by the "standard"
point rules (in 2 above).
They corresponded to the situations where:
1. Other people's comments are not known.
2. No explanation for others erroneous responses.
3. There is an apparent priority difference on the importance of risking
a wrong choice for extra points.
4. There is clearly different payoff schemes for the majority than the lone
subject.
Results
There were no errors in any of the "non-critical" tones -- no
subject dissented from a correct group consensus.
The results confirm the above hypotheses:
1. Control = 3.6% errors
2. Asch Condition = 25.7%
3. Differing priorities = 17.9%
4. Differeing payoffs = 9.6 %
The results of self-reported confidence in their decisions support the overall
results.
Discussion
The experiments show that conformity rate is the resultant of two opposing
forces. The pressure to conform is matched against the pressure to remain
independent. This restraining force is reduced when a situation is difficult
or ambiguous. The Asch experiment clearly reduces this "independence
force" because the price of dissention (stating that others can't see
reality or showing that one sees reality differently) is high.
In other tasks, the cost of conformity is less (and may avoid pointless
confrontation and may even be showing tact and good manners) and so people
conform more.
External and Internal Attributions
The results show that when people can attribute others actions to external
forces and payoffs, they are more confortable being non-conformist. If
they can only attribute perceptual differences in forces and payoffs, they
are much less comfortable with this attribution and more willing to conform.
Public vs Private Opinions
One could also interpret the experimental results by noting the subjects
could interpret a difference between what the other "subjects"
were responding and what they were thinking (caused by the assymetcric payoff
schemes).