Normative behavior in a group
Analysis of the diversity of group norms generated by systems of official and informal relations, role prescriptions, etc. carried out by a number of authors, allows us to give the following general characteristics of the functioning of norms in a small group.
Firstly, norms are products of social interaction that arise during the life of a small group, as well as those introduced into it by a larger social community (for example, an organization).
Second, the group does not set norms for every possible situation; norms are formed only in relation to actions and situations that have some significance for the group.
Thirdly, norms can be applied to the situation as a whole, regardless of the individual group members participating in it and the roles they play, or they can regulate the implementation of a particular role in different situations, i.e. act as purely role standards of behavior.
Fourth, norms vary in the degree to which a group accepts them: some norms are approved by almost all group members, while others are supported only by a small minority, and others are not approved at all.
Fifthly, norms also differ in the degree and breadth of deviance they allow and the corresponding range of sanctions applied.
The study of normative behavior in a small group, which has been going on for many decades, has allowed us to accumulate enormous empirical material that gives an idea of the variety of research approaches available here and the very varied phenomenological picture reconstructed on their basis.
Despite the complexity of classifying past and contemporary developments of normative behavior (due to the extreme heterogeneity of the available data), we nevertheless, based on considerations of a purely thematic nature, tried to combine them into three large blocks:
1) studies examining the influence of norms shared by the majority of group members;
2) studies examining the influence of norms shared by a minority of group members;
3) studies examining the consequences of individuals deviating from group norms.
Studies of the normative influence of the group majority. Research of this type was largely stimulated by the now classic works of S. Asch, which essentially laid the foundation for the experimental study of the phenomenon of conformist behavior, which recorded the fact of an individual’s agreement with the opinion of the group majority - a kind of group norm.
It seems appropriate to at least briefly dwell on some of the individual-personal, group and activity factors of conformity behavior identified in laboratory experimentation.
As for the first of them, we will talk about the individual and personal characteristics of group members that predispose them to attacks of conformist behavior. The literature provides data indicating a negative relationship between the tendency of group members to conform to behavior and such personal traits as intelligence, leadership ability, stress tolerance, social activity and responsibility. It has also been shown that females are more conforming than males. In addition, age-related variations in conformity behavior were studied. According to M. Shaw and F. Costanzo, there is a curvilinear relationship between age and conformity, with conformity reaching its maximum at 12–13 years of age, then gradually decreasing (four age groups of subjects were taken: 7–9, 11–13, 15– 17 years old, 19–21 years old). Somewhat different data were obtained by A.P. Sopikov (he worked with subjects aged 7–18 years): in his experiments, the degree of conformity decreased with age and its smallest manifestations occurred at 15–16 years, after which no noticeable changes in the decline in conformity were observed . These differences are apparently explained both by the specifics of the experimental procedures used and by the sociocultural characteristics of the subjects (Soviet and American). We emphasize that the age-related indicators of conformity outlined above were obtained in peer groups.
Judging by the literature, the group factors of conformity behavior studied by researchers include the size of the group, the structure of communication networks, the degree of group cohesion, and features of the group composition. Thus, it is shown that conformity increases with the increase in the group majority unanimous in their answers (bearing in mind the experimental situation proposed by S. Asch), as a rule, up to 3–4 people. However, as soon as even one person in this majority showed dissent (it was expressed in the contradiction of his answer with the opinion of the rest of the majority), the percentage of conformist reactions immediately fell sharply (from 33 to 5.5%, according to M. Shaw). Positive relationships were also identified between increased decentralization of communication networks and group cohesion, on the one hand, and an increase in conformist behavior, on the other. It has been established that homogeneous, i.e. Groups that are homogeneous in some way are more conformist than heterogeneous groups. Moreover, the influence of the homogeneity factor on increasing conformity is related to how relevant the feature underlying the homogeneity of the group is for the latter. An important condition for conformist behavior is, in addition, the assessment by the so-called naive (in the terminology of S. Asch) subject, personifying a group minority, of both his own competence and the competence of the group majority. In particular, the naive subject's high degree of confidence in his own competence reduces his dependence on the opinion of the group majority and is highly assessed by the naive subject.
In our opinion, the data characterizing the dependence of the intensity of conformal behavior on certain features of the subjects’ activities are also of interest. We have already mentioned that A.P. Sopikov identified a high degree of conformity among teenage orchestra members (on average for orchestras it was 67.5%), which was more than twice as high as the conformity of boys of the same age who did not play in an orchestra. At the same time, the winners of physics and mathematics Olympiads had rather low conformity rates (only 23%). In the experiments of A.V. Baranov, conducted with students of pedagogical and technical universities, it turned out that future teachers behaved more conformally in experimental situations than future engineers.
Consideration by specialists of the phenomenon of conformal behavior inevitably affects the issue related to its assessment. Indeed, how to interpret this kind of behavior: as a purely negative phenomenon in its essence, meaning thoughtless, slavish adherence to behavioral models established by others, or conscious opportunism of an individual in a social group? Such an interpretation of conformity, it should be admitted, is not so rare. As M. Shaw rightly noted, “even among social psychologists there is a widespread view of conformity as agreement with the majority for the sake of agreement itself.” Fortunately, however, such a superficial understanding of the essence of a socio-psychological phenomenon that is very complex in nature is not the only one. In the literature, attempts are found to analyze it more deeply, focusing, in particular, on the processes of matching an individual’s external agreement with group norms (public conformity) to their internal (personal) approval, i.e. in fact, on the search for varieties of conformal behavior.
There are two types of conformal behavior: external and internal subordination of the individual to the group. External submission manifests itself in two forms: firstly, in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group, accompanied by an acute internal conflict, and, secondly, in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group without any pronounced internal conflict. Internal subordination consists in the fact that some individuals perceive the group’s opinion as their own and adhere to it not only in a given situation, but also beyond it. The author identified the following types of internal subordination:
a) mindlessly accepting the wrong opinion of a group on the grounds that “the majority is always right”, and
b) accepting the group’s opinion by developing one’s own logic to explain the choice made.
Still, it should be recognized as legitimate the point of view according to which conformity to group norms in some situations is a positive, and in other situations a negative factor in the functioning of the group. Indeed, adherence to certain established standards of behavior is important, and sometimes simply necessary, for the implementation of effective group actions, in particular, in extreme conditions. In addition, a number of studies have shown that in some cases, conformity can even result in altruistic behavior or behavior that is consistent with the moral criteria of the individual himself.
It’s another matter when agreement with the norms of the group takes on the character of extracting personal gain and actually begins to qualify as opportunism. It is then that conformity causes various negative aspects that are so often generally attributed to this phenomenon. But even if the decision made reflects the actual opinion of the subject, the desire for uniformity of views on certain problems, so typical of many close-knit groups, often becomes a serious obstacle to their effective functioning, especially in those types of joint activities where the share of creativity is high.
Research on the normative influence of minority groups. Dating back a little over two decades, this line of study of normative behavior originates in the studies of S. Moscovici and his colleagues, which represent a completely unambiguous, from the point of view of adherents of this direction, alternative to the traditional development of the problems of intra-group influence of the majority, usually associated with the phenomenon of conformity. According to S. Moscovici, the traditional approach focuses on the consideration of three aspects of the problem: social control over the behavior of individuals, the disappearance of differences between them, and the development of uniformity of group behavior. This understanding of normative (already conformal) behavior forms the basis of a certain functionalist model of social interaction, according to which the behavior of an individual in a group is an adaptive process designed to balance it with the surrounding social environment. Contributing to this adaptation, conformity actually acts as a certain requirement of a social system (group) presented to its members in order to develop agreement between them, contributing to the establishment of balance in the system. Therefore, individuals who follow group norms should, in the logic of the model, be viewed as acting in a functional and adaptive manner, while those who deviate from accepted norms should be perceived as behaving in a dysfunctional and maladaptive manner.
According to S. Moscovici, the functionalist model of social interaction contains the following six fundamental provisions.
1. Influence in the group is distributed unevenly and is exercised one-sidedly. The view of the majority is respected because it is considered to be correct and "normal", while the view of any minority that diverges from the views of the majority is wrong and deviant. One side (the majority) is seen as active and open to change, while the other (the minority) is seen as passive and resistant to change.
2. The function of social influence is to maintain and strengthen social control. According to the functionalist model, to exercise social control it is necessary that all members of the group adhere to similar values, norms, and evaluative criteria. Resistance to them or deviation from them threatens the functioning of the group, so it is in the interests of the group that influence is primarily a means of “correcting” deviants.
3. Relationships of dependence determine the direction and magnitude of social influence exercised in the group. In the study of the influence process, dependence is considered as a fundamental determining factor. Each individual accepts influence and shows compliance in order to earn the approval of the rest of the group. And each of them depends on the others to obtain information, since all individuals strive to build a correct and stable picture of the world that makes their assessments valid.
4. The forms in which the process of influence appears depend on the state of uncertainty experienced by the subject and his need to reduce this uncertainty. In particular, when uncertainty in assessing the current situation, one’s own opinion, etc. increases, and the objective criteria for such assessment are blurred, the state of internal uncertainty of the individual intensifies, making it more susceptible to the influence of others.
5. Consent achieved through mutual exchange of influence is based on an objective norm. But when this does not turn out to be the case, people have no choice but to turn to generally accepted opinion, which replaces the objective criterion.
6. All processes of influence must be understood as a manifestation of conformity. Its understanding can, however, take extreme forms when objective reality is eliminated from the analysis carried out by the researcher, as was the case in the experiments of S. Asch. S. Moscovici expresses doubts about the validity of this theoretical constructor, arguing his objections with references to historical examples from the field of politics and science and citing purely logical arguments regarding the functioning of large social systems. It is argued, for example, that innovation and social change often arise on the periphery of society, and not on the initiative of its leaders, who are also vested with high social power, and that a decisive role in the development of these processes can be played by individuals who, in their views, the problems put forward, and their proposed solutions are a public minority.
So, what exactly does S. Moscovici offer? The descriptive model of minority influence he developed, which is largely an alternative to the functionalist model outlined above, includes the following “blocks” of analysis.
1. Arguments in favor of the existence of the model. It is argued that the functioning of social groups depends on the agreement of their members regarding some fundamental principles of life. The efforts of the minority should be aimed at shaking this agreement. Of course, the group will try to put pressure on the minority in order to restore the previously existing uniformity of views. However, any strict sanctions against deviants (in the form of, for example, their expulsion) are not so frequent in many groups, so the majority of group members must for some time be content with relations with the minority who persist in their opinion, which turns out to be very significant for the development of influence not only along the path leading from the majority to the minority, but also, most importantly, in the opposite direction. In addition, unusual types of behavior (marginality, deviance, etc.) have a very attractive force for others and, containing elements of surprise and originality, can ultimately evoke the approval of other group members.
One of the first rigorous empirical evidence of the influence exerted by a minority was the now classic experiments of S. Moscovici and his colleagues, in which groups of six people (two “accomplices” of the experimenter and four “naive” subjects) participated. The subjects were given a color perception test, ostensibly with the aim of establishing their perceptual competence. The stimulus material was blue slides, but the experimenter’s “accomplices” constantly named the color green at each presentation, thereby influencing the majority. The results obtained were as follows. Firstly, “accomplices”, i.e. minority, did influence the responses of “naive” subjects (8.42% of choices in the experimental group were green, while in the control group such choices were only 0.25%). Secondly, the color discrimination threshold changed. When subjects were presented with a successive series of shades between pure blue and pure green, the detection of green in the experimental group occurred at an earlier stage than in the control group. Thus, the influence of the minority appeared not only as a momentarily fixed fact, but was also characterized by a certain stability.
2. Minority behavioral style. Research has shown that the behavioral style exhibited by a minority can significantly determine its ability to influence. In this sense, such characteristics of style as its stability, the individual’s confidence in the correctness of his position, and the presentation and structuring of relevant arguments are especially important. In particular, if we return to the already mentioned “color” experiment, it should be said that in one of the series, the “accomplices”, instead of the constant answer “green”, in some cases said “green”, and in others – “blue”, as a result of which the indicator minority influence in the experimental group (1.25%) was only slightly different from that in the control group.
3. Social change. According to S. Moscovici and J. Pechelet, social change and innovation, like social control, are manifestations of influence. While challenging the view that change and innovation are the work of the leader alone, they also defend the right of the minority to initiate these processes. An example is a situation with a change in group norms that embody fairly well-established laws of the majority. Under certain conditions, however, a minority is able to “put forward” its norm and prevail over the conservative majority.
The researchers' reasoning is based on a number of experiments. In one of them, performed by C. Nemeth and G. Wachtler, subjects were randomly presented with slides depicting samples of supposedly Italian and German painting. Subjects in the control groups showed a predominant preference for examples of “Italian” painting, which the experimenters qualified as a kind of group norm. The “accomplices” of the experimenters introduced into the experimental groups were introduced to the rest of their members as persons of either Italian or German origin. These “accomplices” openly declared their predominant interest in the works of “their compatriots.” As a result, regardless of the participation of a “German accomplice” or an “Italian accomplice” in the experiment, the subjects of the experimental groups treated the paintings of “German” masters with greater preference than the subjects of the control groups. A similar fact is interpreted by S. Moscovici and J. Pechelet as a consequence of the significant influence of the unusual position of a group minority.
The same research line was continued in a series of experiments by J. Pechelet, which made it possible to obtain similar data. In a group discussion situation, it was shown that a minority can accelerate the process of normative change, and at the same time the conditions under which this should happen were determined. The essence of the study was to study the influence exerted by an extreme and firm subject (the experimenter’s “accomplice”) on the attitudes of group members (we were talking about attitudes regarding the equality of women), as a result of which they changed in a certain way. At the very beginning of the experiment, the subjects demonstrated very moderate feminist attitudes, which during the subsequent discussion became more clearly expressed both in the direction of feminism and in the opposite direction. At this moment, an “accomplice” of the experimenter was introduced into the group - a person with strongly expressed either feminist (in the logic of the approach being discussed - an innovator) or anti-feminist (in the logic of the approach being discussed - a conservative) sentiments. While the “feminist confederate” had a significant influence on the attitudes of group members, strengthening their feminist principles, the statements of the “anti-feminist confederate” caused polarization of opinions in the group. At the same time, feminist-minded subjects became even more strengthened in their beliefs, and neutrals and antifeminists came under the strong influence of the antifeminist views of the “accomplice.” In this regard, S. Moscovici and J. Pechelet note that it would be naive to consider minority influence as working only in a positive or progressive direction.
4. Conflict. Processes of influence, S. Moscovici believes, are inevitably associated with overcoming the conflict that arises between the individual’s current opinion and what others offer (or impose) on him. However, the conflict is resolved differently, depending on who proposes (or imposes) a different opinion: the majority or the minority. When influenced by the majority, the individual often only compares his position with the opinion of the majority, and the demonstration of agreement with the latter is determined by the search for approval and the reluctance to show one’s disagreement. In the case of minority influence, a person is encouraged to search for new arguments, confirm his position, and consider a larger number of possible opinions. It is also noted that, despite the emergence of a kind of cognitive conflict, a shift in the individual point of view towards the position of the majority occurs at the earliest stages of decision-making or in the first minutes of discussion, while a shift towards the minority opinion occurs much later, “breaking through” strong negative attitudes from others. Moreover, agreement with a minority is, as a rule, more indirect and latent in nature than agreement with the majority.
Consequences of deviation from group norms. In the course of the previous presentation, we to one degree or another touched on this aspect of normative behavior, especially if we bear in mind research materials related to the behavior of a group minority. Nevertheless, this aspect of the problem deserves independent consideration, although, we note, studies related to it are relatively few. In a number of them, carried out in industrial organizations, it was found that the deviation of group members from the standards of behavior established in it is accompanied by the application of certain sanctions to the deviants in the form of ridicule, threats, etc.
Similar data were obtained in laboratory studies that simulated situations of deviant behavior. Among the classics here are the old experiments of S. Schechter, characterized by a very original methodological execution and worthy of at least a brief description. Four types of student groups were created (the author calls them “clubs”), which met periodically to discuss issues that interested them (members of one of the groups were interested in jurisprudence, another in editing, a third in theater and cinema, a fourth in technical problems) and differed from each other each other by the level of cohesion and the degree of importance for the members of each of them of the topic intended to be discussed in the experiment (it concerned the history of the court case of a minor offender). The groups consisted of 5 - 7 people, each of whom got acquainted with the history of this offender and determined, using a 7-point scale, what should be done with him. Their opinions were then read to the group. At the same time, three additional participants introduced into the experiment—the experimenter’s “accomplices”—expressed their judgments on the mentioned issue. One of them immediately agreed with a certain average opinion of the group (a kind of “norm”) and supported it during the subsequent discussion, while the other two took the opposite position. However, during the discussion, one of the “accomplices” accepted the influence of the group and changed his opinion, while the other persisted in his decision until the end of the discussion. As a result, it was clearly established that initially all messages in the group were directed towards deviants with the aim of inducing them to abandon their original point of view. After one of them agreed with the group, the communication flows addressed to him weakened. As for the “accomplice” who did not agree with the majority, after strong pressure on him from the group, communication with him stopped: the group seemed to reject him (this was also evidenced by the data of a post-experimental survey of subjects). Moreover, the trends identified in the experiment (pressure and rejection) increased depending on the degree of group cohesion and the relevance of the topic under discussion.
It is interesting that a quarter of a century later, S. Schechter’s experiments were turned to by researchers on the problems of group minority influence. In particular, G. Mugny identified such a significant variable for opposing the position of a minority to the point of view of the majority as the negotiation style, showing that a soft, flexible style, contributing to the development of compromise solutions, allows the minority to defend its opinion or slightly modify it without any aggressive reactions on the part of the majority, while a tough, rigid style noticeably worsens the position of the minority, leading to a sharp predominance of the norms of the majority.
The fact that groups exert pressure on their deviating members is, in general, a well-known fact from literature and life. In this regard, first of all, the question arises about the functions of such pressure. Researchers point to the following main functions: 1) help the group achieve its goals; 2) help the group preserve itself as a whole; 3) help group members develop a “reality” to relate their opinions to; 4) help group members determine their attitude to the social environment.
As for the first two functions, they hardly need any special comment. In relation to the third of them, we are talking about developing a kind of reference point with which a person could correlate his opinions and judgments in order to clarify their validity. This starting point is the so-called “reality” (or “social reality”), which is a kind of group agreement (a kind of group norm) regarding certain life phenomena, situations, etc. Such “reality” allows the individual to avoid uncertainty both regarding the assessment of the decisions she makes and regarding the interpretation of her condition. Finally, the last of these functions is associated with the achievement by group members of agreement regarding the relationship of their group with the social environment (other groups, organization, etc.), which, as researchers believe, ensures its viability and adaptation in society, the consistency of group actions.
The implementation of the above functions is largely due to the development of uniformity in assessments, decisions, and behavioral models of group members, which in turn is caused by processes of intragroup pressure, and there are, apparently, many situations in which the presence of such uniformity is an important factor in the effectiveness of the group. But here another question arises, namely: is uniformity always useful? Does it contribute to the emergence of creativity in the group, does it stimulate the dynamics of group processes (after all, uniformity is the antagonist of contradictions, this “fuel” of development), does it introduce elements of innovation into the life of the group? It is quite obvious that any unambiguous answer is hardly appropriate here. Rather, the question posed above should be approached from a dialectical position. Then it is possible, at least hypothetically, to believe that uniformity is useful as a condition for the preservation and survival of a group that is in pronounced extreme conditions associated with a threat to its normal functioning, which, by the way, is evidenced by numerous empirical data, but will be a factor of stagnation and regression, leading to the development of destructive processes in relatively calm (“normal”) situations of group functioning. It is in these situations that elements of creativity and various kinds of innovation, leading to the revision of group standards that do not meet the requirements of the time, should, in our opinion, become distinctive features of group life.
Harmful decisions that can lead to disruptions, production failures at subsequent stages or during the consumption of the product. Table 1. Characteristics of types of labor behavior Sign Types of labor behavior transformative creative contemplative adaptive destructive 1. Realization of personal labor potential Fully realized Mostly realized...
Another essential characteristic of the life of an established small group that we highlight is the functioning of the processes of normative behavior in it, i.e. behavior associated with the implementation of group norms. By starting to consider this issue, we are, to some extent, also continuing the conversation about group structure. The fact is that a group (or social) norm is a certain rule, a standard of behavior in a small group [see. 289: 310: 333], as a regulator of the relations unfolding in it [see. 29] is often considered by specialists [see. 23!; 289; 310] to the elements of the group structure, being associated with its other elements - status, role. This understanding is to some extent reflected in the relationship between norm and status that we examined earlier. At the same time, given the significant share of normative regulation among other manifestations of social influence in a group, there is reason to consider normative behavior as an independent section of group psychology.
An analysis of the diversity of group norms generated by systems of official and informal relations, role prescriptions, etc., carried out by a number of authors (29: 195; 310) allows us to give the following general characteristics of the functioning of norms in a small group.
Firstly, norms are products of social interaction that arise during the life of a group, as well as those introduced into it by a larger social community (for example, an organization).
Second, the group does not set norms for every possible situation; norms are formed only in relation to actions and situations that have some significance for the group.
Thirdly, norms can be applied to the situation as a whole, regardless of the individual group members participating in it and the roles they play, or they can regulate the implementation of a particular role in different situations, that is, act as purely role-based standards of behavior.
Fourth, norms vary in the degree to which a group accepts them: some norms are endorsed by almost all group members, while others are supported by only a small minority, and others are not endorsed at all.
Fifthly, norms also differ in the degree and breadth of deviance they allow and the corresponding range of sanctions applied.
The study of normative behavior in a small group, which has been going on for many decades, has allowed us to accumulate enormous empirical material that gives an idea of the variety of research approaches available here and the very varied phenomenological picture reconstructed on their basis. Despite the complexity of the classification of past and modern developments of normative behavior (due to the extreme heterogeneity of the available data), we, nevertheless, based on considerations of a purely thematic nature, tried to combine them into three large blocks: 1) studies studying the influence of norms shared by the majority of group members ; 2) studies examining the influence of norms shared by a minority of group members; 3) studies examining the consequences of individuals deviating from group norms.
Research on the normative influence of group majorities. Research of this type was largely stimulated by the now classic works of S. Asch (189; 190), which essentially laid the foundation for the experimental study of the phenomenon of conformist behavior, which recorded the fact of an individual’s agreement with the opinion of the group majority—a kind of group norm. We will not dwell on these works, since their content, both in its methodological part and in terms of the results obtained, has been discussed repeatedly, and sometimes in a very critical manner, in the domestic literature (9: 17: 73; 140; 165: 16).
The main arguments of critics of the research paradigm proposed by S. Asch, and among them were, note, his foreign colleagues (211; 279); boil down to emphasizing the insignificance of the experimental situation for the subjects, the randomness of the selection of subjects and their separation from their natural social environment, the absence of any hint of joint activity and even rudimentary signs of a social group. Such arguments, of course, are largely fair, although if we strictly adhere to the facts, it would be worth recalling that in a study by A.P. Sopikov, conducted on a sample of 550 people using both the original Ashevo procedure and a number of its modifications, conformal reactions were also very clearly revealed in the behavior of members of fairly established social groups, such as, for example, the orchestras of the Palaces of Pioneers in various cities of our country (17). But it is especially interesting in the context of this discussion to cite the thoughts expressed by V. E. Chudnovsky in connection with the long-term experimental study by his colleagues of the conformist behavior of teenage schoolchildren. “For the majority of subjects,” he writes, the experimental situation was morally significant and often associated with intense internal conflict. It should be noted in this regard that defending a certain assessment under experimental conditions, when others hold a different opinion, acquires a moral character. Under these conditions, the defense of a certain true opinion also acquires a moral character, even if it in itself does not have moral significance (166: 129). He also notes that among the subjects there were many schoolchildren for whom the dummy group was a reference group and disagreements with it caused quite acute feelings. As we see, strictly scientific data indicate the need for a less categorical and emotional, but at the same time more balanced and, we would add, correct assessment of the research paradigm under consideration.
However, the very fact of the existence of the phenomenon of conformal behavior is not rejected by the most acute critics of the approach used by S. Asch (9). This circumstance seems significant to us and leads to the following reflection: if a certain phenomenon (specifically conformal behavior) really exists, then it is probably not without interest to consider some conditions that contribute to its development. Moreover, the fact that the latter were isolated in the laboratory and not in real society should not, in our opinion, serve as a basis for ignoring them. They should simply be considered not as direct analogues of phenomena that take place in a natural small group, but rather as an indication of what can take place in reality, that is, in a natural group process, what you should pay attention to when starting it study. With this very point in mind, it seems appropriate to at least briefly dwell on some of the individual, personal, group and activity factors of conformity behavior identified in laboratory experimentation.
As for the first of them, we will talk about the individual and personal characteristics of group members that predispose them to acts of conformist behavior. The literature (73; 310) provides evidence of a negative relationship between the tendency of group members to conform to behavior and such personal traits as intelligence, leadership ability, stress tolerance, social activity and responsibility. It has also been shown (17; 166; 310) that females are more conforming than males. In addition, age-related variations in conformity behavior were studied. According to M. Shaw and F. Costanzo (310), there is a curvilinear relationship between age and conformity, with conformity reaching its maximum at the age of 12-13, then gradually decreasing (four age groups of subjects were taken: 7-9, II- 13, 15-17 years, 19-21 years). Somewhat different data were obtained by A.P. Sopikov (he worked with subjects aged? - 18 years): in his experiments, the degree of conformity decreased with age and its smallest manifestations occurred at the age of 15-16, after which no noticeable changes in the decline in conformity were observed (17). These differences are apparently explained both by the specifics of the experimental procedures used and by the sociocultural characteristics of the subjects (Soviet and American). We emphasize that the age-related indicators of conformity outlined above were obtained in peer groups.
Judging by literary sources (165: 166; 182; 310), the group factors of conformity behavior studied by researchers include the size of the group, the structure of communication networks, the degree of group cohesion, and features of the group composition. Thus, it is shown that “conformity increases with the increase in the group majority unanimous in its answers (bearing in mind the experimental situation proposed by S. Asch), as a rule, up to 3-4 people. However, as soon as at least one person in this majority showed dissent ( it was expressed in the contradiction of his answer with the opinion of the rest of the majority), as the percentage of conformal reactions immediately fell sharply (from 33 to 5.5%, according to M. Shaw (310). Positive relationships were also revealed between the increased decentralization of communication networks and group cohesion, on the one hand, and the growth of conformal behavior, on the other (182; 310).It has been established that homogeneous, i.e., homogeneous in some respects, groups are distinguished by greater conformity than heterogeneous groups (182). Moreover, the influence of the homogeneity factor to strengthen conformity is related to how relevant for the latter is the feature underlying the homogeneity of the group.An important condition for conformity behavior is, in addition, the assessment by the so-called naive (in the terminology of S. Asch) subject, personifying a group minority, as his own competence, and the competence of the group majority (310). In particular, the high degree of confidence of a naive subject in his own competence reduces his dependence on the opinion of the group majority. However, this dependence will increase if the competence of the group majority is assessed highly by the naive subject.
In our opinion, the data characterizing the dependence of the intensity of conformal behavior on certain features of the subjects’ activity are also of interest (17). We have already mentioned that A.P. Sopikov identified a high degree of conformity among teenage orchestra members (on average for orchestras it was 67.5%), which was more than twice as high as the conformity of boys of the same age who did not play in an orchestra. At the same time, the winners of physics and mathematics Olympiads had rather low conformity rates (only 23%). In the experiments of A.V. Baranov, conducted with students of pedagogical and technical universities, it turned out that future teachers behaved more conformally in experimental situations than future engineers.
Although the empirical facts presented above were obtained, as already mentioned, in laboratory conditions, we nevertheless once again want to emphasize their significance in the sense that they to a certain extent orient the researcher towards studying a number of aspects of normative behavior in natural group situations, i.e. to check relevant laboratory data. Of course, only correlating the results of laboratory experimentation with materials collected in a natural microsocium will make it possible to make a final judgment regarding the action of certain factors of conformal behavior. However, we note that the presence of the latter is not only a fact suggested by common sense and everyday observations and highlighted in this regard in laboratory experimentation, but also a reality recorded in some field studies of social (310) and industrial (310) psychologists, in the works to study the functioning of groups in so-called closed habitat systems (114).
Consideration by specialists of the phenomenon of conformal behavior inevitably affects the issue related to its assessment. Indeed, how to interpret this kind of behavior: as a purely negative phenomenon in its essence, meaning thoughtless, slavish adherence to behavioral models established by others, or conscious opportunism of an individual in a social group? Such an interpretation of conformity, it should be admitted, is not so rare. As M. Shaw rightly notes, “even among social psychologists there is a widespread view of conformity as agreement with the majority only for the sake of agreement itself (310: 248). Fortunately, however, such a superficial understanding of the essence of a socio-psychological phenomenon that is very complex in nature is not the only one. In the literature, attempts are found to analyze it more deeply, focusing, in particular, on the processes of matching an individual’s external agreement with group norms (public conformity) with their internal (personal) approval, i.e., in fact, on the search for varieties of comfortable behavior.
Back in the early 50s, L. Festinger (216) suggested that public conformity would be accompanied by personal approval of norms only if the subject wanted to remain in the group. Moreover, the threat of punishment will only cause external agreement with the group, without affecting a genuine change in views. Somewhat later, M. Deutsch and G. Gerard (211) pointed out two types of social influence in a group: normative And informational. In the first case, conformity is caused by the individual’s desire to act in accordance with group instructions; in the second, the behavior of the majority is used as a source of information that helps the individual make the most appropriate decision for him in a given situation. Although these authors did not discuss the role of different types of influence in relation to the issue of public agreement and internal approval, the literature (182) nevertheless suggests that informational influence is more likely to lead to public conformity and private change of views than normative influence. .
The issue under discussion receives further development in the already mentioned work of V. E. Chudnovsky (166), who distinguishes two types of conformal behavior: external and internal subordination of the individual to the group. External submission manifests itself in two forms: firstly, in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group, accompanied by an acute internal conflict, and, secondly, in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group without any pronounced internal conflict. Internal subordination consists in the fact that some individuals perceive the group’s opinion as their own and adhere to it not only in a given situation, but also beyond it. The author identified the following types of internal subordination: a) thoughtless acceptance of the wrong opinion of the group on the grounds that “the majority is always right,” and 6) acceptance of the group’s opinion by developing one’s own logic to explain the choice made. According to the author, such logic performs the function of reconciling two contradictory tendencies: the individual’s desire to be in agreement with the group and, at the same time, in agreement with himself.
Thus, the kind of mini-models of conformal behavior already given above indicate its rather complex nature. The analysis of the phenomenon can, however, move in the direction of further deepening if we pay even more attention to the factors that determine the activity of the individual himself in making a decision in the situation of the choice that arises before him. In this sense, the model of social influence in a small group proposed by G. Kelman is indicative. The author describes three qualitatively different levels of conforming behavior: submission, identification and internalization. In the case of submission, the acceptance of the influence of another person or group is purely external, pragmatic in nature, and the very duration of such behavior is limited by the presence of a source of influence.
The next level of accepting the influence of another person or group is identification. Two of its varieties are considered: classical identification and identification in the form of a reciprocal-role relationship. In the first case, the subject of identification strives to partially or completely become like the agent of influence (whether individual members of the group, its majority, or the group as a whole) due to the sympathy felt for him and the presence of desirable traits for him to assimilate. In the second case, acceptance of influence is carried out in the form of a reciprocal role relationship: each participant in the interaction expects certain behavior from the other and tries to meet the expectations of the partner (or partners). Moreover, if the existing relationship satisfies a person, he will behave this way regardless of whether his partner is watching him or not, since for his own self-esteem it is essential to meet the expectations of the other. Identification may partially resemble submission if there is an individual's acceptance of imposed behavior that does not give him a feeling of satisfaction. At the same time, identification differs from submission in that in this case, according to the author, the subject mostly believes in the opinions and forms of behavior imposed on him. In any case, however, G. Kelman believes, opinions adopted through identification are not integrated with the value system of the individual, but rather isolated from it.
Such integration is characteristic of the third level of acceptance of social influence - internalization. A distinctive feature of the latter is the coincidence (partial or complete) of the opinions expressed by an individual or group with the value system of that particular individual. In fact, in this case, the elements of the influence exerted become part of the subject’s personal system itself, which the author tries to differentiate from the system of social role expectations. Thanks to the internalization process, the behavior of a group member becomes relatively independent of external conditions: the presence of an agent of influence, the incentive influences of the corresponding social role. True, as G. Kelmen emphasizes, the subject cannot completely free himself from the influence of situational variables. In some cases, faced with multiple situational demands, he must choose between 13 sets of competing values.
As we can see, the model described above allows for a fairly differentiated approach to the analysis of the manifestations of normative behavior in a small group, taking as a basis such a powerful dynamizing and at the same time selective in nature factor of a person’s activity as its inherent values. At the same time, this model can, in our opinion, be supplemented by including into it at least one more level of normative behavior, which also involves addressing the value aspect of individual behavior, but in connection with the actual group goals and values generated by joint group activity. This logic of analysis is suggested to us by familiarity with the phenomenon of collectivistic self-determination, which was repeatedly described in the works of A. V. Petrovsky and his colleagues (131; 132; 140).
As is known, this phenomenon is characterized by the manifestation of relative uniformity of behavior as a result of the individual’s solidarity with the assessments and tasks of the team (140). It is assumed that in the case of collectivistic self-determination, the individual consciously defends the socially significant values accepted in the group, outlined in the course of implementing joint activities, goals, etc. However, it is not entirely clear how, say, group and individual values relate, whether the latter influence an individual’s agreement with the corresponding group values or his recognition of certain decisions made by the group or planned goals. Until now, as far as we know, this kind of question has not been put forward in the literature; in any case, it has not been posed in this formulation either by G. Kelman or by researchers working within the framework of the stratometric concept. Meanwhile, turning to it, with all the methodological complexity of its solution, would allow, in our opinion, to obtain much more meaningful information than has been the case so far about the intimate mechanisms of agreement or disagreement of an individual with a group, and in a broader sense, about the mechanisms deployment of normative behavior in the group.
Above, asking a question about a possible interpretation of the phenomenon of conformity, we tried to show the illegitimateness of some authors’ desire for an unambiguously negative assessment of it, citing individual models of normative (already conformal) behavior in a group, indicating the complex nature of the latter. Another proof of the simplification of any unambiguous understanding of the phenomenon under discussion are the interesting attempts of a number of authors to include its explanation in the context of fairly broad theoretical constructions that go far beyond the scope of particular micromodels.
Thus, Gerard’s initial attempt to connect the consideration of a person’s conformity behavior with the process of his search for relevant information in a group (Deutsch, Gerard; 1955) later led the researcher to the construction of an information theory of conformity (Gerard; 1972). It argues that conformity should be considered as part of a more general theory that addresses the consequences of seeking information related to interpersonal relationships in situations of comparison and evaluation of one's own behavior with the behavior of other group members. There are two types of this kind of social comparison: comparative and reflected assessment. In Gerard's (1972) theoretical construct, two general types of dependence on others are information dependence and influence dependence, i.e. dependence due either to the presence of others as a source of information, or to the power of one subject over another. Both types of addiction make the individual hypersensitive to social influences. Reflective assessment, according to Gerard, is based on both types of dependence, while comparative assessment includes predominantly information dependence. Thus, the information approach allows us to consider conformity in the aspect of social comparison processes, treating it as one of the manifestations of the comparison tendency. Note that experimental testing indicates the reality of such a point of view (1972).
A number of attempts to explain the phenomenon of conformal behavior are found within the framework of theories of psychological exchange known in social psychology. Thus, extending his understanding of exchange to the phenomena of group behavior, Hommans (1961) argues that an individual behaves conformally not in order to conform to the group norm, but in order to earn the approval of other group members. And if, according to the personality’s assessment, conformity does not bring the expected approval from others, conforming behavior will not take place. Because, as this researcher suggests, people find others' and their own conformity to relevant group norms to be beneficial, they reward it with appropriate psychological approval. A similar point of view is expressed by Hollander and Willis (1967), who emphasize the instrumental function of conformity as a specific reward for other group members, facilitating the process of interaction and facilitating further exchange of rewards. Adherents of the approach under discussion (Nord; 1969) consider it a useful theoretical tool for studying the problem of conformist behavior, allowing one to consider both the source of influence and the subject being influenced in the interrelation and dynamics.
It is impossible not to notice that the interpretation of conformal behavior from the standpoint of theories of psychological exchange is distinguished by undoubted pragmatism. We will not, however, unequivocally negatively assess this fact. The question is more complicated than it seems at first glance. Essentially, this is the question of how, and we have already touched upon it earlier, how to understand conformity in general: as a purely negative phenomenon in its nature and function, or as a phenomenon that is characterized by a certain expediency and therefore, in a number of cases, carries a useful load.
Still, one should recognize as legitimate the point of view according to which conformity to group norms in some situations is a positive, and in other situations a negative factor in the functioning of the group (Shaw, 1971). Indeed, adherence to certain established standards of behavior is important, and sometimes even necessary, for effective group action, particularly under extreme conditions (Harrison, 1984). In addition, a number of studies have shown that in some cases, conformity can even result in altruistic behavior or behavior that is consistent with the moral criteria of the individual himself (Shaw, 1971). It's another matter when you agree with. group norms takes on the character of extracting personal benefit and actually begins to qualify as opportunism. It is then that conformity causes various negative aspects that are so often generally attributed to this phenomenon. But even if the decision made reflects the actual opinion of the subject, the desire for uniformity of views on certain problems, so typical of many close-knit groups, often becomes a serious obstacle to their effective functioning, especially in those types of joint activities where the share of creativity is high.
Of course, a true understanding and explanation of conforming behavior is possible only by taking into account the “work” of many situational, group and individual-personal factors and correlating the effects they cause in natural situations of group activity with the results of model characteristics of the phenomenon obtained in laboratory experimentation conditions. But this way of studying the problem is apparently a matter of the near future. However, the data already available today, some of which were cited above, warn us against a simplified interpretation of it, once again drawing attention to the complex, sometimes contradictory nature of the phenomenon being described. And in this sense, it is of interest to attempt to consider normative behavior in a group from a different perspective from that stated above.
Research on the normative influence of group minorities. Dating back a little over two decades, this line of study of normative behavior originates in the studies of Moscovici and his associates (Maas, Ciark, 1984; Moscovici, Faucheux, 1972; Moscovici, Pauicheler, 1983; Nemeth, 1986), representing a completely unambiguous, p. the point of view of adherents of this direction, an alternative to the traditional development of the problems of intra-group influence of the majority, usually associated with the phenomenon of conformity. According to Moscovici (1983), the traditional approach emphasizes consideration of three aspects of the problem: social control over the behavior of individuals, the disappearance of differences between them, the development of uniformity of group behavior; This understanding of normative (already-conformal) behavior forms the basis of a certain functionalist model of social interaction, according to which the behavior of an individual in a group is an adaptive process designed to balance it with the surrounding social environment. Contributing to this adaptation, conformity actually acts as a certain requirement of a social system (group), presented to its members in order to develop agreement between them, contributing to the establishment of balance in the system. Therefore, individuals who follow group norms should, in the logic of the model, be viewed as acting in a functional and adaptive manner, while those who deviate from accepted norms should be perceived as behaving in a dysfunctional and maladaptive manner.
According to Moscovici (1983), the functionalist model of social interaction contains the following six fundamental assumptions.
Influence in the group is distributed unevenly and is exercised one-sidedly. The view of the majority is respected because it is considered to be correct and “normal”, while the view of any minority that diverges from the views of the majority is wrong and deviant. One side (the majority) is seen as active and open to change, while the other (the minority) is seen as passive and resistant to change.
The function of social influence is to maintain and strengthen social control. According to the functionalist model, to exercise social control it is necessary that all members of the group adhere to similar values, norms, and evaluative criteria. Resistance to them or deviation from them threatens the functioning of the group, therefore it is in the interests of the latter that influence is, first of all, a means of “correcting” deviants.
Dependency relationships determine the direction and magnitude of social influence exercised in a group. In the study of the influence process, dependence is considered as a fundamental determining factor. Each individual accepts influence and shows compliance in order to earn the approval of the rest of the group. And each of them depends on the others to obtain information, since all individuals strive to build a correct and stable picture of the world that makes their assessments valid.
The forms in which the process of influence appears depend on the state of uncertainty experienced by the subject and his need to reduce this uncertainty. In particular, when uncertainty in assessing the current situation, one’s own opinion, etc. increases, and the objective criteria for such assessment are blurred, the state of internal uncertainty of the individual intensifies, making it more susceptible to the influence of others.
Consent achieved through mutual exchange of influence is based on an objective norm. But when this does not turn out to be the case, people have no choice but to turn to generally accepted opinion, which replaces the objective criterion.
All processes of influence must be understood as manifestations of conformity. Its understanding can, however, take extreme forms when objective reality is eliminated from the analysis carried out by the researcher.
Something similar happens, according to Moscovici, with the explanation that innovation processes receive within the framework of existing ideas about conformity, in particular their interpretation in the model of “idiosyncratic credit” described above by Hollander (1964). In this regard, it should be said that in a number of his works (1972; 1983) Moscovici expresses doubts about the validity of this theoretical construct, justifying his objections with references to historical examples from the field of politics and science and citing arguments of a purely logical nature regarding the functioning of large social systems. It is argued, for example, that innovation and social change often arise on the periphery of society, and not on the initiative of its leaders, who are also vested with high social power, and that a decisive role in the development of these processes can be played by individuals who, in their views, the problems put forward, and their proposed solutions are a public minority. Let us note, however, that the legitimacy of the appeal of Moscovici and his colleagues to examples from the life of large social systems seems to us to be very debatable, since in the research practice of these psychologists. There are no large social groups as objects of study, and all the factual material obtained by them is, in fact, the product of laboratory experimentation, carried out, as we will see below, according to a scheme in the traditions of Asch and his followers. It is quite reasonable, of course, to assume (at least following the logic of common sense) that even in a small group, certain innovations can be introduced (or at least proposed) not only by leaders, as follows from Hollander’s model, but also by others members of the group who do not have high status. But for such an assumption it is hardly necessary to turn to the experience of Robespierre, Luther or Galileo, as is done, for example, by Moscovici and Faucheux (1972).
So what exactly does Moscovici offer? The descriptive model of minority influence he developed (1983), which is largely an alternative to the functionalist model outlined above, includes the following “blocks” of analysis.
1. Arguments for the existence of the model. It is stated. that the functioning of social groups depends on the agreement of their members regarding some fundamental principles of life. The efforts of the minority should be aimed at shaking this agreement. Of course, the group will try to put pressure on the minority in order to restore the previously existing uniformity of views. However, any strict sanctions against deviants (in the form, for example, of their expulsion) are not so frequent in many groups, so the majority of group members must for some time be content with relations with a minority that persists in its opinion, which turns out to be very significant for the development of influence not only along the path leading from the majority to the minority, but also, most importantly, in the opposite direction. In addition, unusual types of behavior (marginality, deviance, etc.) have a very attractive force for others and, containing elements of surprise and originality, can ultimately evoke the approval of other group members.
One of the first rigorous empirical evidence of minority influence came from the now classic experiments of Moscovici et al. (1972; 1983), which involved groups of six subjects (two “confederates” of the experimenter and four “naïve” subjects). The subjects were given a color perception test, ostensibly with the aim of establishing their perceptual competence. The stimulus material was blue slides, but the experimenter’s “accomplices” constantly named the color green at each presentation, thereby influencing the majority. The results obtained were as follows. Firstly, the “accomplices”, i.e. the minority, did influence the responses of the “naive” subjects (8.42% of choices in the experimental group were green, while in the control group only 0.25% of such choices were ). Secondly, the color discrimination threshold changed. When subjects were presented with a successive series of shades between pure blue and pure green, the detection of green in the experimental group occurred at an earlier stage than in the control group. Thus, the influence of the minority appeared not only as a momentarily fixed fact, but was also characterized by a certain stability.
2. Minority behavioral style. As studies have shown (1984; 1972; 1983), the style of behavior demonstrated by a minority can significantly determine its ability to influence. In this sense, such characteristics of style as its stability, the individual’s confidence in the correctness of his position are especially important; presentation and structuring of relevant arguments. In particular, if we return to the already mentioned “color” experiment, it should be said that in one of the series, the “confederates”, instead of the constant answer “green”, in some cases said “green”, and in others “blue”, as a result of which the indicator minority influence in the experimental group (1.25%) was only slightly different from that in the control group.
3. Social change. According to Moscovici and Paicheler (1983), social change and innovation, like social control, are manifestations of influence. While challenging the view that change and innovation are the work of the leader alone, they also defend the right of the minority to initiate these processes. An example is a situation with a change in group norms that embody fairly well-established laws of the majority. Under certain conditions, however, a minority is able to “put forward” its norm and prevail over the conservative majority.
The researchers' reasoning is based on a number of experiments. In one of them, carried out by Nemeth and Wachtler (1983), subjects were presented in random order with slides depicting samples of supposedly Italian and German paintings. Subjects in the control groups showed a predominant preference for examples of “Italian” painting, which the experimenters qualified as a kind of group norm. The “accomplices” of the experimenters introduced into the experimental troupes were presented to the rest of their members as persons of either Italian or German origin. These “accomplices” openly declared their predominant interest in the works of “their compatriots.” As a result, regardless of the participation of a “German accomplice” or an “Italian accomplice” in the experiment, the subjects of the experimental groups treated the paintings of “German” masters with greater preference than the subjects of the control groups. This fact is interpreted by Moscovici and Paicheler (1983) as a consequence of the significant influence of the unusual minority group position. The same research line was continued in a series of experiments by Paicheler (ibid.), which made it possible to obtain similar data. In a group discussion situation, it was shown that a minority can accelerate the process of normative change, and at the same time the conditions under which this should occur were determined. The essence of the study was to study the fusion exerted by an extreme and firm subject (the experimenter’s accomplice) on the attitudes of group members (we were talking about attitudes regarding the equality of women), as a result of which they changed in a certain way. At the very beginning of the experiment, the subjects demonstrated very moderate feminist attitudes, which during the subsequent discussion became more clearly expressed both in the direction of feminism and in the opposite direction. At this moment, an “accomplice” of the experimenter was introduced into the group - a person with strongly expressed either feminist (in the logic of the discussed approach - an innovator) or anti-feminist (in the logic of the discussed approach - a conservative) sentiments. While the “feminist confederate” had a significant influence on the attitudes of group members, strengthening
It should be noted that Paicheler, based on a sociological and historical analysis of the trends in the life of her contemporary society (in this case, French), considered attitudes with a more pronounced feminist overtones as a kind of social norm in their feminist beginning, the statements of the “anti-feminist accomplice” caused group polarization of opinions. At the same time, feminist-minded subjects became even more strengthened in their beliefs, and neutrals and anti-feminists came under the strong influence of the anti-feminist views of the accomplice. In this regard, Moscovici and Paicheler note that it would be naive to view minority influence as working only in a positive or progressive direction.
4. Conflict. Processes of influence, Moscovici believes, are inevitably associated with overcoming the conflict that arises between the individual’s current opinion and what others offer (or impose) on him. However, the conflict is resolved differently, depending on who proposes (or imposes) a different opinion: the majority or the minority. When influenced by the majority, the individual often only compares his position with the opinion of the majority, and the demonstration of agreement with the latter is determined by the search for approval and the reluctance to show one’s disagreement. In the case of minority influence, a person is encouraged to search for new arguments, confirm his position, and consider a larger number of possible opinions. It is also noted (Nemeth, 1986) that, despite the emergence of a kind of cognitive conflict, a shift in the individual point of view towards the position of the majority occurs in the very early stages of decision-making or in the first minutes of discussion, while a shift towards the minority opinion occurs much later , “breaking through” the strong negative attitudes of others. Moreover, agreement with a minority is, as a rule, more indirect and latent in nature than agreement with the majority.
5. "Halo effect" The influence of the minority in intragroup processes was also recorded when referring to such a traditional phenomenon for socio-psychological problems as the “halo effect”. Moreover, the manifestations of influence were considered by researchers in relation to such varieties as the semantic and temporal “halo effect”, the aftereffect, etc.
So, the theoretical positions formulated by Moscovici and his colleagues and the empirical facts illustrating them generally well support the idea of the normative influence of a minority, although the model presented above (sometimes in the literature it is called interactionist, as it takes into account the mutual influence of the majority and minority) is not shared by all researchers , in particular, because of its supposed scientific laxity. These accusations come from adherents of the American experimental psychological tradition. It should be taken just as critically due to the problem of the conjugation of methodological foundations that I have already discussed above. At least today, Moscovici's work is more often associated with the European line of social psychology, characterized by greater depth and creativity.
Although Moscovici and his collaborators constitute the main backbone of researchers of normative minority influence, the efforts of representatives of this scientific group are, as a special analysis shows (Maass, Clark, 1984), far from the only attempt to study the discussed area of group behavior, and, moreover, they do not exhaust all possible ways to illuminate the problem. In particular, as Nemeth (1986) believes, we can talk about expanding the area of analysis of influence, connecting it not only with the pressure of the group or its individual members, but also with consideration of the processes of attention, thinking, taking into account standard and non-standard decisions and judgments that have place in the group. The ideas developed by this researcher concern the clarification of the differences in the specific influence exerted by the group majority and the group minority, and essentially boil down to the following.
Based on the results of preliminary experiments, Nemeth came to the conclusion that the influence of the minority and the majority differs not only in strength and openness (in the sense of demonstrating agreement), but also in the nature of the concentration evoked among group members and the uniqueness of the decision-making process. When influenced by the majority, the attention of the remaining members of the group is concentrated precisely on the position proposed to them. In the case of minority influence, attention is focused on other alternatives, often different from the position of both the minority itself and the rest of the group. Consequently, we can say that individuals faced with the opinion of a minority make more efforts to develop cognitive activity than is the case in a situation of majority influence. In other words, certain differences are found in the nature of thinking of a group member when disagreement arises with the positions of the majority and minority.
In the event of a discrepancy between the opinions of a minority and the point of view of one or another member of the group, the latter checks a significant number of alternatives to possible solutions, and the thought process unfolds in many directions. The likelihood of finding new unexpected solutions increases, which, quite possibly, will be more effective than the previous ones. Moreover, in a situation of minority influence, the tendency towards divergence of solution options is dominant. In the case of the influence of the majority, the tendency towards convergence of decisions in the direction of the position of the majority prevails. The individual's attention is focused only on those aspects of the task that are close to the opinion of the majority. Other possible solutions remain outside the subject's field of vision. What explains the differences described above? Nemeth sees their cause primarily in the degree of stress of the decision-making situation. In this regard, we note that Asch (!951; 1955) drew attention to the stressful consequences of the very fact that an individual’s opinion does not coincide with the position of the majority. At the same time, available data (Maass, Clark, 1984) indicate that minority influence is not a source of stress. On the contrary, the opinion of a minority often causes ridicule and irony from other members of the group. In addition, a comparative study of the influence exerted by the majority and the minority under the same conditions found that subjects felt significantly more stress when faced with a different opinion from the majority than from the minority (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983).
At the same time, from general psychological research (Nemeth, 1986) it is known that strong emotional arousal causes concentration of attention on the central task and a decrease in its focus on peripheral problems. Therefore, as Nemeth believes, an increase in stress when an individual’s opinion does not agree with the position of the majority leads to a concentration of attention on one solution option proposed by the majority, and in general worsens the quality indicators of the solution. When exposed to a minority, the stress of the situation is minimal and the conditions for solving the problem are close to optimal. In other words, in a situation of majority influence, a person is actually faced with a kind of binary choice: his own position or the opinion of the majority. And his attention often (either because of the premise that the majority is always right, or out of fear of the disapproval of the majority) turns to the last alternative. Another thing is the situation of minority influence. If at an early stage of consideration of a problem his opinion can be rejected by an individual, then with a confident and consistent defense by the minority of the put forward point of view, it should gradually begin to be taken into account by members of the group, which will lead to a reassessment of the entire situation in which, as one of. available alternatives will be the position of the minority. In addition, a stable and long-term position of a minority, diverging from both the opinion of an individual member of the group and its majority, gives rise to a kind of conflict situation leading to increased cognitive activity of its participants (remember, above, when describing the Moscovici model, it was noted that in case of discrepancy with the majority opinion, the conflict is resolved at the initial stage of the discussion and then no longer affects the decision-making process).
In order to test these assumptions, Nemeth and his collaborators conducted three studies. In the first of these, subjects, assembled in groups of six, were presented with sets of slides depicting six figures and a pattern that was to be identified in each of them (it was skillfully interspersed with these figures). The group majority and minority were formed from the experimenter’s “accomplices” and consisted of four and two people, respectively. In the second study, subjects made three-letter words using sets of letters shown to them on slides, and in the third study, they made word associations to colored slides presented to them. In each of the studies, the confederates influenced the subjects with their judgments regarding the solution of experimental problems.
The experimental results indicate that the processes of majority and minority influence differ mainly in the form of their expression. Thus, the majority exerts quite a strong influence in the sense of its dissemination in the group in the form of acceptance by individuals (“naive subjects”, in the terminology of S. Asch) of the position imposed on them. At the same time, they narrow the choice of options under consideration, limiting themselves only to those that are offered to them by the majority, do not strive to search for alternatives, and do not notice other solutions, including the correct ones. As for the influence of the minority, although it manifests itself with much less force, it nevertheless stimulates more divergent thinking strategies of group members, contributes to the growth of originality and diversity of solutions and, very importantly, their effectiveness. Moreover, the influence of a minority turns out to be useful (in terms of individuals generating original solutions) even when the underlying opinion is erroneous.
Thus, the specific empirical data obtained by Nemeth quite clearly support the logic of its theoretical constructions. In general, the line of research she develops on normative behavior not only deepens our understanding of the process of minority influence, but also allows us to approach such traditional problems as group creativity and decision making, once again emphasizing the close interconnection of the phenomena of a small group as a truly systemic formation.
How should one evaluate the study of the normative influence of group minorities, which was initially undertaken by Moscovici and then attracted the interest of other researchers? “Of course, an attempt to include in the analysis of normative behavior the aspect of influence associated with the actions of a minority seems to be a rather productive step, contributing to the expansion of the traditional framework for considering the problem. Normative behavior is no longer interpreted as a unidirectional process of pressure from the group majority, but is described rather as a mutually directed process, as an element of a real interactions within a social group. However, turning to the question of the influence of a group minority, Moscovici also tries to interpret it as the influence exerted by a broader social community, the representative of which, according to the researcher, is a minority that brings with it from the macrosociety to this specific group elements of novelty, creativity, change, etc. With this understanding of the phenomenon, the boundaries of group analysis open up, and the breath of social life powerfully invades it.But this, unfortunately, is only theoretical, only based on specially specified assumptions, because the actually used Moscovici and other developers of the problem under discussion, the experimental paradigm does not allow such “breathing” to be recorded, and in fact it “remains” as if only “in the mind” of the author of the corresponding model.
As can be seen from the previous presentation, Moscovici and his supporters tend to have a rather negative attitude towards conformity, which they understand only as purely external agreement with the opinion of the majority, although the materials cited in the first part of the paragraph indicate a much more complex nature of the phenomenon. Indeed, what to do if, for example, the mechanism of internalization is the basis of the received influence? Of course, an appeal to macrosociety presupposes taking into account its indirect influence on the value system of a group member, and, in turn, if we continue the logical chain, the role of the latter in developing an individual decision. However, this issue has not yet received specific study by researchers of the influence of group minorities. And their very study of the problem posed moves, as we have seen, in a different (rather extrapersonal) direction.
Of course, we are far from thinking of attributing any kind of inconsistency to the approach under discussion. On the contrary, the facts discovered by its representatives and their interpretation once again indicate the extreme complexity of the processes occurring in a small group, their dependence on many variables, often still extremely poorly identified and studied. However, some theoretical “claims” of the leaders of this approach, not being properly supported methodologically, remain so far nothing more than declarations, which are unlikely to contribute to a productive consideration of the problem. Meanwhile, the inclusion of the phenomenon of group minority influence in the focus of research analysis poses many very specific questions for developers of normative behavior that require undoubted attention: how, in the process of developing group norms, the simultaneous mutual influence of the group majority and minority is carried out, which ensures the predominance of one of the parties, how they coexist in In this case, there is a tendency towards convergence and divergence of opinions, and to what extent are the data obtained in the laboratory and the theoretical principles associated with them transferable to the behavior of people in natural groups? The answers to these (and, apparently, many others stimulated by the development of the problem under discussion) questions are not only of purely cognitive interest; they can also be useful for various areas of social practice: in some cases, as evidenced by the experience of Nemeth (1986), in relation to social groups focused on solving creative problems, in others, as Maass Clark (1984) suggests, in relation to real minority groups -ethnic, racial, formed by people with certain health problems, etc.
Consequences of deviation from group norms. In the course of the previous presentation, we to one degree or another touched on this aspect of normative behavior, especially if we bear in mind research materials related to the behavior of a group minority. Nevertheless, this aspect of the problem deserves independent consideration, although, we note, studies related to it are relatively few. In a number of them, carried out in industrial organizations, it was found that the deviation of group members from the standards of behavior established in it is accompanied by the application of certain sanctions to the deviants in the form of ridicule, threats, etc. (Homans, 1961).
Similar data were obtained in laboratory studies that simulated situations of deviant behavior. Among the classics here are the long-standing experiments of Schachter (1951), characterized by a very original methodological execution and worthy of at least a brief description. Four types of student groups were created (the author calls them “clubs”), which periodically met to discuss issues that interested them (members of one of the groups were interested in jurisprudence, another in editing, a third in theater and cinema, a fourth in technical problems) and differed from each other each other by the level of cohesion and the degree of importance for the members of each of them of the topic intended to be discussed in the experiment (it concerned the history of the court case of a minor offender). The groups consisted of 5-7 people, each of whom got acquainted with the history of this offender and determined, using a 7-point scale, what should be done with him. Their opinions were then read to the group. At the same time, three additional participants, “accomplices” of the experimenter, who were additionally introduced into the experiment, expressed their judgments on the mentioned issue. One of them immediately agreed with a certain average opinion of the group (a kind of “norm”) and supported it in the subsequent entry. discussions, and the other two took the opposite position. However, during the discussion, one of the “accomplices” accepted the influence of the group and changed his opinion, while the other persisted in his decision until the end of the discussion. As a result, it was clearly established that initially all messages in the group were directed towards deviants with the aim of inducing them to abandon their original point of view. After one of them agreed with the group, the communication flows addressed to him weakened. As for the “accomplice” who did not agree with the majority, after strong pressure on him from the group, communication with him stopped: the group seemed to reject him (this was also evidenced by the data of a post-experimental survey of subjects). Moreover, the trends identified in the experiment (pressure and rejection) increased depending on the degree of group cohesion and the relevance of the topic being discussed.
It is interesting that a quarter of a century later, S. Schechter’s experiments were turned to by researchers on the problems of group minority influence [see. 269; 282]. In particular, Mugny (1975) identified such a significant variable for opposing the minority position to the point of view of the majority as the negotiation style, showing that a soft, flexible style, facilitating the development of compromise solutions, allows the minority to defend its opinion or slightly modify it without any aggressive reactions from the majority, while a tough, rigid style noticeably worsens the position of the minority, leading to a sharp predominance of the norms of the majority.
The fact that groups exert pressure on their deviating members is, in general, a well-known fact from literature and life. In this regard, first of all, the question arises about the functions of such pressure. Researchers [see 231] indicate its following main functions: 1) help the group achieve its goals: 2) help the group preserve itself as a whole; 3) help group members develop a “reality” to relate their opinions to; 4) help group members determine their attitude to the social environment.
As for the first two functions, they hardly need any special comment. In relation to the third of them, we are talking about developing a kind of reference point with which a person could correlate his opinions and judgments with a view to clarifying their validity. This starting point is the so-called “reality” (or “social reality”), which is a kind of group agreement (a kind of group norm) regarding certain life phenomena, situations, etc. (Cartwright, Zanna, 1968). Such “reality” allows the individual to avoid uncertainty both regarding the assessment of the decisions he makes (Festinger, 1954) and regarding the interpretation of his state (Schachter, 1959). Finally, the last of these functions is associated with the achievement by group members of agreement regarding the relationship of their group with the social environment (other groups, organization, etc.), which, as researchers believe (Cartwright, Zanna, 1968), ensures its viability and adaptation in society, consistency of group actions.
The implementation of the above functions is largely due to the development of uniformity in assessments, decisions, and behavioral models of group members, which in turn is caused by processes of intragroup pressure, and there are, apparently, many situations in which the presence of such uniformity is an important factor in the effectiveness of the group. But here another question arises, namely: is uniformity always useful? Does it contribute to the emergence of creativity in the group, does it stimulate the dynamics of group processes (after all, uniformity is the antagonist of contradictions, this “fuel” of development), does it introduce elements of innovation into the life of the group? It is quite obvious that any unambiguous answer is hardly appropriate here. Rather, the question posed above should be approached from a dialectical position. It is then possible, at least hypothetically, to believe that uniformity is beneficial. a condition for the preservation and survival of a group located in pronounced extreme conditions associated with a threat to its normal life activity, which, by the way, is evidenced by numerous empirical data [see. 95; 236], but will be a factor of stagnation and regression, leading to the development of destructive processes in relatively calm (“normal”) situations of group functioning. It is in these situations that elements of creativity and various kinds of innovation, leading to the revision of group standards that do not meet the requirements of the time, should, in our opinion, become distinctive features of group life.
With a brief examination of the consequences of deviant behavior, we conclude our discussion of the problems of normative influence in the group. The last characteristic of the established small group that interests us is its cohesion.
Page 1
Normative behavior is a goal-oriented, ordered activity that allows you to build a sequence of routine actions in a familiar work situation. The rule is generally formulated from previous experience and reflects the functional properties that constrain the behavior of the environment.
Normative behavior can either be prescribed to a group member in the form of a role (for example, leader), or act as a role standard of behavior common to group members.
The team of a small group insists on the normative behavior of each of its members, since to a certain extent it also depends on this behavior.
Group interactions are mediated (usually) by normative behavior, sometimes called a pattern. It is associated with the implementation of the group’s goals and is recognized to one degree or another by all representatives of the group.
Pospelov and Shuster, 1990] Pospelov D. A., Shuster V. A. Normative behavior in the world of people and machines.
Responding to a change in the situation as a philosophy of situational management presupposes the existence of a certain image of the organization’s normative behavior that prescribes the trajectory of effective production and commercial activity.
As a result, replacing the game G with its characteristic function ig, removing the question of the normative behavior of the players, does not, however, attribute to them any justified individual winnings. The latter can only be achieved by introducing additional optimization considerations. In this regard, the study of the characteristic functions of non-cooperative games constitutes a whole theory, which is called the cooperative theory of non-cooperative games.
During this process, members of the organization get used to the norms of organizational culture, master the procedures of normative behavior (i.e., how to follow the norms of the organization’s culture), and are included in the system of social relations characteristic of this organization, primarily relations of power and subordination, relations with colleagues. Next, members of the organization initially master their role requirements and get used to them. However, during the adaptation process, there is no internalization by the employee of the role and normative requirements imposed on him by work, as well as consolidation of the individual with the team, since he is just beginning to form a sense of involvement in the organization as a social group.
Therefore, very often the same norm can be justified by different values, and fear of punishment is one of the most important regulators of normative behavior.
The fourth area of research is related to the creation of intelligent robots capable of autonomously solving complex problems related to the movement of robots in a real environment, processing of visual information, normative behavior of robots, and much more.
The feeling of helplessness and dependence that arises in a person as a result of alienation often leads to anomie and deviant behavior, which we discussed above in general form (see chapter. Not only the motivation to work is undermined, but also the acceptance of normative behavior: both of them have little justification from the point of view of a person who does not feel like he is the master of life.
The conformist fulfills his role by coming as close as possible to institutionalized expectations. A person who deviates from the norm, who fulfills his role by avoiding normative behavior, may accept sanctions, or may look for ways to get rid of them. Finally, he may be a hyperconformist. In every country, in every social circle, the role of a good Catholic is defined on the basis of the rules of Catholic behavior.
As a result, social norms and rules of the organization become part of the personal structure of each individual member of the organization and normative behavior begins to be carried out unconsciously, automatically, internalized norms are carried out confidently and definitely. The result of this process is internal personal control over correct behavior within the norms and rules of the organization. Often, members of an organization try, consciously or unconsciously, to spread accepted and internalized norms and rules to their colleagues and even beyond the boundaries of their group. Gradually, during internalization, a member of the organization develops a desire to maximize his own values and norms, and a stable system of personal values and normative orientations is created. Ultimately, the individual fully assimilates the system of role relationships, expectations and role requirements, accepts the roles assigned to him and forms his own goals in accordance with the goals of the organization. In this case, an important point is the orientation of organization members to master new roles.
At the same time, Durkheim did not at all believe that modern society does not have norms; on the contrary, society has many systems of norms that are difficult for an individual to navigate. Anomie, therefore, according to Durkheim, is a state in which a person does not have a strong sense of belonging, no reliability and stability in choosing a line of normative behavior.
CONTROL TASK
in the discipline "Social Psychology"
specialty: Marketing curriculum section: Social psychology teacher-consultant: Kovalenko A.B.
Test topic:
Normative behavior in a group
1. Group norms and normative behavior.
2. Normative influence of the group majority. Group pressure.
Conformism and conformity.
3. Influence of the minority on the group.
4. The concept of personality reference groups.
“Only through his relationship to another person does a person exist as a person”
(S. Rubinstein)
Group (social) norms are the standard of behavior in a small group, the regulator of the relationships that develop in it. In the process of a group’s life, certain group norms and values arise and develop, which should be shared by all participants to one degree or another.
A characteristic of the life activity of a group is the functioning in it of processes of normative behavior associated with the implementation of group norms.
A norm refers to standardized norms of behavior adopted by group members; they regulate the activities of the group as an organized unit. The functioning of group norms is directly related to social control and individual behavior. Compliance with standards is ensured by appropriate sanctions.
Group norms are certain rules developed by a group, accepted by its majority and regulating the relationships between group members. To ensure compliance with these norms by all members of the group, a system of sanctions is also developed. Sanctions can be of an incentive or prohibitive nature. With an incentive nature, the group rewards those members who fulfill the requirements of the group - their status grows, the level of their emotional acceptance increases, and other psychological reward measures are used. With a prohibitive nature, the group is more inclined to punish those members whose behavior does not conform to the norms. These can be psychological methods of influence, reducing communication with the “guilty”, lowering their status within group connections.
The characteristics of the functioning of norms in a small group can be determined by the following characteristics:
1) group norms are a product of social interaction between people and arise in the process of the group’s life, as well as those introduced into it by a larger social community (organization);
1) the group does not establish norms of behavior for every possible situation; they are formed only in relation to actions and situations that have a certain significance for the group;
1) norms can be applied to the situation as a whole, not relating to individual members of the group and the role assigned to them, but can also regulate the standards of behavior of individual individuals performing certain social roles;
2) norms vary in the degree to which they are accepted by the group: some norms are approved by almost all group members, while others are supported only by a small minority or not approved at all;
3) norms also differ in the range of sanctions applied (from disapproval of a person’s action to exclusion of him from the group).
A sign of socio-psychological phenomena in a group is the normativity of an individual’s behavior. Social norms perform the functions of guiding behavior, assessing it, and controlling it.
Social norms of behavior provide a special unification of the behavior of group members, and also regulate differences in the middle of the group, maintaining the stability of its existence. The goal set by an individual is determined by group norms. The influence of the group on the individual is in his desire to coordinate his actions with the norms accepted in the group, and to avoid actions that may be considered as a deviation from them.
Normative influence is a specification of a more general problem - the influence of a group on the behavior of an individual, which can be differentiated as a study of four relatively independent issues: the influence of the norm of the group majority, the normative influence of the group minority, the consequences of an individual’s deviation from group norms, reference group characteristics.
The problem of adopting a system of group norms for a new group member is especially acute. Knowing what rules the group members follow in their behavior, what values they value and what relationships they profess, a new member of the group faces the problem of accepting or rejecting these rules and values. In this case, the following options for his attitude to this problem are possible:
1) conscious, free acceptance of the norms and values of the group;
2) forced acceptance under threat of group sanctions;
3) demonstration of antagonism towards the group (according to the “black sheep” principle);
4) conscious, free rejection of group norms and values, taking into account possible consequences (up to and including leaving the group).
It is important to keep in mind that all these options enable a person to decide, to find “his place in the group, either in the ranks of the “law-abiding” or in the ranks of the “local rebels.”
Research has shown that the second type of human behavior towards a group is very common. The forced acceptance by a person of the norms and values of a group under the threat of losing this group or his position in it is called conformism. Experiments to study this phenomenon were started by the American psychologist S. Ash.
Conformism in general is defined as passive, opportunistic acceptance of group standards in behavior, unconditional recognition of established orders, norms and rules, unconditional recognition of authorities. In this definition, conformism can mean three different phenomena:
1) an expression of a person’s lack of his own views, beliefs, weak character, adaptability;
2) manifestation of sameness in behavior, agreement with the point of view, norms, and value orientations of the majority of others;
3) the result of the pressure of group norms on the individual, as a result of which he begins to think and act like other members of the group.
Conformity exists every day in small groups at work, in interest groups, in the family and affects individual life attitudes and behavior changes.
The situational behavior of an individual under conditions of specific group pressure is called conformal behavior.
The degree of conformity of a person is determined and depends, firstly, on the importance for him of the expressed opinion - the more important it is for him, the lower the level of conformity.
Secondly, on the authority of those who express certain views in the group
- the higher their status and authority for the group, the higher the conformity of the members of this group.
Thirdly, conformity depends on the number of people expressing one or another position, on their unanimity.
Fourthly, the degree of conformity is determined by the age and gender of the person - women are generally more conforming than men, and children - than adults.
Research has shown that comfort is a controversial phenomenon, primarily because an individual's compliance does not always indicate actual changes in his perception. There are two options for individual behavior: - rationalistic, when the opinion changes as a result of the individual’s conviction of something; motivated - if he demonstrates change.
Conformal behavior of a person can be considered as negative in its essence, meaning slavish, thoughtless adherence to group pressure, and as the individual’s conscious opportunism to the social group.
Foreign researchers L. Festinger, M. Deutsch, and G. Gerard distinguish two types of conformal behavior: external submission, manifested in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group. In this case, two options for an individual’s well-being are possible: 1) submission is accompanied by an acute internal conflict; 2) adaptation occurs without any pronounced internal conflict; internal subordination, when some individuals perceive the opinion of the group as their own and adhere to it outside of it. There are the following types of internal submission: 1) thoughtless acceptance of the wrong opinion of the group according to the principle “the majority is always right”; 2) accepting the group’s opinion by developing one’s own logic to explain the choice made.
Thus, conformity to group norms is a positive factor in some situations, and a negative factor in others. Adherence to certain established standards of behavior is important, and sometimes necessary, for effective group action. It’s another matter when agreement with the norms of the group takes on the character of extracting personal gain and turns into opportunism.
Conformity is a very important psychological mechanism for maintaining the internal homogeneity and integrity of the group. This is explained by the fact that this phenomenon serves to maintain group constancy in conditions of change and development of the group. At the same time, it can be an obstacle to the development of individuals and social groups.
To determine how minority opinion influences a group, many experiments have been conducted. For some time the prevailing view was that the individual was essentially amenable to group pressure. But some experiments have shown that subjects with high status change their opinion little, and the group norm deviates in their direction. If those studied in a conflict situation find social support, their persistence and confidence in defending their ideas increases. It is important that an individual, defending his point of view, knows that he is not alone.
Contrary to the functionalist model of group influence, the interactionist model is built taking into account the fact that in a group, under the influence of external social changes, the balance of power is constantly changing, and the minority can act as a conductor of these external social influences in the group. In this regard, the asymmetry of relations is leveled out
"minority - majority".
The term minority in research is used in its literal sense. This is the part of the group that has less influence. But if a numerical minority manages to impose its point of view on other members of the group, it can become a majority. To influence a group, a minority must be guided by the following conditions: consistency, persistence of behavior, unity of minority members at a particular moment and preservation, repetition of a position over time. Consistency in the behavior of a minority has a noticeable effect, since the very fact of persistence of opposition undermines agreement in the group. The minority, firstly, offers a norm opposite to the norm of the majority; Secondly, it clearly demonstrates that group opinion is not absolute.
To answer the question of what tactics a minority should adhere to and maintain its influence, G. Mugny conducted an experiment, the general idea of which is as follows: when it comes to value orientation, the group is divided into a large number of subgroups with their own diverse positions. Participants in subgroups focus not only on this group, but also on other groups to which they belong (social, professional).
To achieve a compromise in a group, the style of behavior of its members, divided into a rigid and flexible style, is of a certain importance. Regidny is uncompromising and categorical, schematic and harsh in statements. This style can lead to a worsening minority position.
Flexible - soft in wording, it shows respect for the opinions of others, a willingness to compromise and is more effective. When choosing a style, it is necessary to take into account the specific situation and problems that need to be solved. In this way, a minority, using various methods, can significantly increase its role in the group and get closer to its goal.
The processes of majority and minority influence differ in the form of their manifestation. The majority exerts a strong influence on the individual's decision-making, but the range of possible alternatives for him is limited to those proposed by the majority. In this situation, the individual does not look for other solutions, perhaps more correct ones. The influence of the minority is less strong, but at the same time it stimulates the search for different points of view, which makes it possible to develop a variety of original solutions and increases their effectiveness. The influence of a minority causes greater concentration and cognitive activity of group members. With the influence of a minority during a divergence of views, the resulting stressful situation is smoothed out through the search for an optimal solution.
An important condition for the influence of a minority is the consistency of its behavior, confidence in the correctness of its position, and logical argumentation. Perceiving and accepting the point of view of a minority is much slower and more difficult than that of the majority. In our time, the transition from the majority to the minority and vice versa occurs very quickly, so the analysis of the influence of the minority and the majority more fully reveals the features of group dynamism.
Depending on the importance for a person of the norms and rules adopted in the group, reference groups and membership groups are distinguished. For each individual, the group can be viewed in terms of his or her orientation toward group norms and values. A reference group is a group towards which a person is oriented, whose values, ideals and norms of behavior he shares.
Sometimes a reference group is defined as a group in which a person aspires to be or maintain membership. The reference group has a significant influence on the formation of the individual and her behavior in the group. This is explained by the fact that the standards of behavior, attitudes, and values adopted in the group act for the individual as certain models on which he relies in his decisions and assessments. A reference group for an individual can be positive if it encourages one to be accepted into it, or at least to be treated as a member of the group. A negative reference group is a group that causes an individual to oppose it, or with which he does not want to have a relationship as a member of the group. The normative reference group is the source of behavioral norms and value orientations for the individual. There are often cases when a person chooses not the real group where he studies and works as a normative one, but an imaginary group that becomes a reference group for him. There are several factors that determine this situation:
1. If a group does not provide enough authority to its members, they will choose an outgroup that has more authority than their own.
2. The more isolated a person is in his group, the lower his status, the more likely he is to be chosen as a reference group, where he expects to have a relatively higher status.
3. The more opportunity an individual has to change his social status and group affiliation, the greater the likelihood of choosing a group with a higher status.
The need to study reference groups is determined by the following factors:
Reference groups are always a system of standards for an individual’s selection and evaluation of his actions and the behavior of other people or events.
A group becomes a reference group if the individual is close to its values, goals, and norms and strives to adhere to its requirements.
With the help of reference groups, a person interprets social norms, setting for himself the boundaries of what is acceptable, desirable or unacceptable.
For a person, the expectation of members of the reference group is a criterion for assessing his actions and encourages him to self-affirmation and self-education.
Reference groups influence the nature of an individual’s relationship with the social environment, prompting the choice of the desired social circle.
With the help of reference groups, a certain type of individual behavior is formed, social control over his behavior is exercised, therefore, in general, reference groups are a necessary factor in the socialization of the individual.
“A person in a group is not himself: he is one of the cells of the body, as different from him as the cell of your body is different from you” (D. Steinbeck, American writer)
Literature:
N.M.Anufrieva, T.N.Zelinskaya, N.E.Zelinsky Social psychology -K.:
MAUP, 1997
M.N.Kornev, A.B.Kovalenko. Social psychology - K. 1995
A.A. Malyshev. Psychology of personality and small group. -Uzhgorod, Inprof, 1997.
CONTROL TASK
in the discipline "Social Psychology"
specialty: Marketing
by section of the curriculum: Social psychology
teacher-consultant: Kovalenko A.B.
Test topic:
Normative behavior in a group
1. Group norms and normative behavior.
2. Normative influence of the group majority. Group pressure. Conformism and conformity.
3. Influence of the minority on the group.
4. The concept of personality reference groups.
“Only through his relationship to another person does a person exist as a person”
(S. Rubinstein)
Group (social) norms are the standard of behavior in a small group, the regulator of the relationships that develop in it. In the process of a group’s life, certain group norms and values arise and develop, which should be shared by all participants to one degree or another.
A characteristic of the life activity of a group is the functioning in it of processes of normative behavior associated with the implementation of group norms.
Under the norm refers to standardized norms of behavior adopted by group members; they regulate the activities of the group as an organized unit. The functioning of group norms is directly related to social control and individual behavior. Compliance with standards is ensured by appropriate sanctions.
Group norms - these are certain rules developed by a group, accepted by its majority and regulating the relationships between group members. To ensure compliance with these norms by all members of the group, a system of sanctions is also developed. Sanctions can be of an incentive or prohibitive nature. With an incentive nature, the group rewards those members who fulfill the requirements of the group - their status grows, the level of their emotional acceptance increases, and other psychological reward measures are used. With a prohibitive nature, the group is more inclined to punish those members whose behavior does not conform to the norms. These can be psychological methods of influence, reducing communication with the “guilty”, lowering their status within group connections.
The characteristics of the functioning of norms in a small group can be determined by the following characteristics:
1) group norms are a product of social interaction between people and arise in the process of the group’s life, as well as those introduced into it by a larger social community (organization);
2) the group does not establish norms of behavior for every possible situation; they are formed only in relation to actions and situations that have a certain significance for the group;
3) norms can be applied to the situation as a whole, not relating to individual members of the group and the role assigned to them, but can also regulate the standards of behavior of individual individuals performing certain social roles;
4) norms vary in the degree to which they are accepted by the group: some norms are approved by almost all group members, while others are supported only by a small minority or not approved at all;
5) norms also differ in the range of sanctions applied (from disapproval of a person’s action to exclusion of him from the group).
A sign of socio-psychological phenomena in a group is the normativity of an individual’s behavior. Social norms perform the functions of guiding behavior, assessing it, and controlling it.
Social norms of behavior provide a special unification of the behavior of group members, and also regulate differences in the middle of the group, maintaining the stability of its existence. The goal set by an individual is determined by group norms. The influence of the group on the individual is in his desire to coordinate his actions with the norms accepted in the group, and to avoid actions that may be considered as a deviation from them.
Normative influence is a specification of a more general problem - the influence of a group on the behavior of an individual, which can be differentiated as a study of four relatively independent questions:
influence of group majority norms,
normative influence of a group minority,
consequences of an individual's deviation from group norms,
· reference groups features.
The problem of adopting a system of group norms for a new group member is especially acute. Knowing what rules the group members follow in their behavior, what values they value and what relationships they profess, a new member of the group faces the problem of accepting or rejecting these rules and values. In this case, the following options for his attitude to this problem are possible:
1) conscious, free acceptance of the norms and values of the group;
2) forced acceptance under threat of group sanctions;
3) demonstration of antagonism towards the group (according to the “black sheep” principle);
4) conscious, free rejection of group norms and values, taking into account possible consequences (up to and including leaving the group).
It is important to keep in mind that all these options enable a person to decide, to find “his place in the group, either in the ranks of the “law-abiding” or in the ranks of the “local rebels.”
Research has shown that the second type of human behavior towards a group is very common. The forced acceptance by a person of the norms and values of a group under the threat of losing this group or his position in it is called conformism. Experiments to study this phenomenon were started by the American psychologist S. Ash.
Conformism - it is the subordination of an individual's judgment or action to group pressure, arising from the conflict between his own opinion and that of the group. In other words, a person demonstrates conformist behavior in a situation where he prefers to choose the opinion of the group to the detriment of his own.
Conformism in general terms it is defined as passive, opportunistic acceptance of group standards in behavior, unconditional recognition of established orders, norms and rules, unconditional recognition of authorities. In this definition, conformism can mean three different phenomena:
1) an expression of a person’s lack of his own views, beliefs, weak character, adaptability;
2) manifestation of sameness in behavior, agreement with the point of view, norms, and value orientations of the majority of others;
3) the result of the pressure of group norms on the individual, as a result of which he begins to think and act like other members of the group.
Conformity exists every day in small groups at work, in interest groups, in the family and affects individual life attitudes and behavior changes.
The situational behavior of an individual under conditions of specific group pressure is called conformal behavior.
The degree of human conformity is determined and depends
firstly, on the importance for him of the expressed opinion - the more important it is for him, the lower the level of conformity.
Thirdly, conformity depends on the number of people expressing one or another position, on their unanimity.
Fourthly, the degree of conformity is determined by the age and gender of the person - women are generally more conforming than men, and children - than adults.
Research has shown that comfort is a controversial phenomenon, primarily because an individual's compliance does not always indicate actual changes in his perception. There are two options for individual behavior: - rationalistic, when the opinion changes as a result of the individual’s conviction of something; motivated - if he demonstrates change.
Conformal behavior of a person can be considered as negative in its essence, meaning slavish, thoughtless adherence to group pressure, and as the individual’s conscious opportunism to the social group. Foreign researchers L. Festinger, M. Deutsch, and G. Gerard distinguish two types of conformal behavior:
· external submission, manifested in conscious adaptation to the opinion of the group. In this case, two options for an individual’s well-being are possible: 1) submission is accompanied by an acute internal conflict; 2) adaptation occurs without any pronounced internal conflict;
· internal subordination, when some individuals perceive the group’s opinion as their own and adhere to it outside of it. There are the following types of internal submission: 1) thoughtless acceptance of the wrong opinion of the group according to the principle “the majority is always right”; 2) accepting the group’s opinion by developing one’s own logic to explain the choice made.
Thus, conformity to group norms is a positive factor in some situations, and a negative factor in others. Adherence to certain established standards of behavior is important, and sometimes necessary, for effective group action. It’s another matter when agreement with the norms of the group takes on the character of extracting personal gain and turns into opportunism.
Conformity is a very important psychological mechanism for maintaining the internal homogeneity and integrity of the group. This is explained by the fact that this phenomenon serves to maintain group constancy in conditions of change and development of the group. At the same time, it can be an obstacle to the development of individuals and social groups.
To determine how minority opinion influences a group, many experiments have been conducted. For some time the prevailing view was that the individual was essentially amenable to group pressure. But some experiments have shown that subjects with high status change their opinion little, and the group norm deviates in their direction. If those studied in a conflict situation find social support, their persistence and confidence in defending their ideas increases. It is important that an individual, defending his point of view, knows that he is not alone.
Contrary to the functionalist model of group influence, the interactionist model is built taking into account the fact that in a group, under the influence of external social changes, the balance of power is constantly changing, and the minority can act as a conductor of these external social influences in the group. In this regard, the asymmetry of the “minority-majority” relationship is leveled out.
Term minority in research it is used in its literal sense. This is the part of the group that has less influence. But if a numerical minority manages to impose its point of view on other members of the group, it can become a majority. To influence a group, a minority must be guided by the following conditions: consistency, persistence of behavior, unity of minority members at a particular moment and preservation, repetition of a position over time. Consistency in the behavior of a minority has a noticeable effect, since the very fact of persistence of opposition undermines agreement in the group. The minority, firstly, offers a norm opposite to the norm of the majority; Secondly, it clearly demonstrates that group opinion is not absolute.
To answer the question of what tactics a minority should adhere to and maintain its influence, G. Mugny conducted an experiment, the general idea of which is as follows: when it comes to value orientation, the group is divided into a large number of subgroups with their own diverse positions. Participants in subgroups focus not only on this group, but also on other groups to which they belong (social, professional).
To achieve a compromise in a group, the style of behavior of its members, divided into a rigid and flexible style, is of a certain importance. Regidny is uncompromising and categorical, schematic and harsh in statements. This style can lead to a worsening minority position. Flexible - soft in wording, it shows respect for the opinions of others, a willingness to compromise and is more effective. When choosing a style, it is necessary to take into account the specific situation and problems that need to be solved. In this way, a minority, using various methods, can significantly increase its role in the group and get closer to its goal.
The processes of majority and minority influence differ in the form of their manifestation. The majority exerts a strong influence on the individual's decision-making, but the range of possible alternatives for him is limited to those proposed by the majority. In this situation, the individual does not look for other solutions, perhaps more correct ones. The influence of the minority is less strong, but at the same time it stimulates the search for different points of view, which makes it possible to develop a variety of original solutions and increases their effectiveness. The influence of a minority causes greater concentration and cognitive activity of group members. With the influence of a minority during a divergence of views, the resulting stressful situation is smoothed out through the search for an optimal solution.
An important condition for the influence of a minority is the consistency of its behavior, confidence in the correctness of its position, and logical argumentation. Perceiving and accepting the point of view of a minority is much slower and more difficult than that of the majority. In our time, the transition from the majority to the minority and vice versa occurs very quickly, so the analysis of the influence of the minority and the majority more fully reveals the features of group dynamism.
Depending on the importance for a person of the norms and rules adopted in the group, reference groups and membership groups are distinguished. For each individual, the group can be viewed in terms of his or her orientation toward group norms and values. A reference group is a group towards which a person is oriented, whose values, ideals and norms of behavior he shares. Sometimes a reference group is defined as a group in which a person aspires to be or maintain membership. The reference group has a significant influence on the formation of the individual and her behavior in the group. This is explained by the fact that the standards of behavior, attitudes, and values adopted in the group act for the individual as certain models on which he relies in his decisions and assessments. A reference group for an individual can be positive if it encourages one to be accepted into it, or at least to be treated as a member of the group. A negative reference group is a group that causes an individual to oppose it, or with which he does not want to have a relationship as a member of the group. The normative reference group is the source of behavioral norms and value orientations for the individual. There are often cases when a person chooses not the real group where he studies and works as a normative group, but an imaginary group that becomes a reference group for him. There are several factors that determine this situation:
1. If a group does not provide enough authority to its members, they will choose an outgroup that has more authority than their own.
2. The more isolated a person is in his group, the lower his status, the more likely he is to be chosen as a reference group, where he expects to have a relatively higher status.
3. The more opportunity an individual has to change his social status and group affiliation, the greater the likelihood of choosing a group with a higher status.
The need to study reference groups is determined by the following factors:
· Reference groups are always a system of standards for an individual’s selection and evaluation of his actions and the behavior of other people or events.
· A group becomes a reference group if the individual is close to its values, goals, norms and strives to adhere to its requirements.
· With the help of reference groups, a person interprets social norms, setting for himself the boundaries of what is acceptable, desirable or unacceptable.
· The expectation of members of the reference group for a person is a criterion for assessing his actions, encourages him to self-affirmation and self-education.
· Reference groups influence the nature of an individual’s relationship with the social environment, prompting the choice of the desired social circle.
· With the help of reference groups, a certain type of individual behavior is formed, social control is exercised over his behavior, therefore, in general, reference groups are a necessary factor in the socialization of the individual.
« A person in a group is not himself: he is one of the cells of the body, as different from it as a cell of your body is different from you.”(D. Steinbeck, American writer)
Literature:
N.M.Anufrieva, T.N.Zelinskaya, N.E.Zelinsky Social psychology -K.: MAUP, 1997
M.N.Kornev, A.B.Kovalenko. Social psychology - K. 1995
A.A. Malyshev. Psychology of personality and small group. -Uzhgorod, Inprof, 1997.
CONTROL TASK in the discipline “Social Psychology” in the specialty: Marketing for the section of the curriculum: Social Psychology teacher - consul