PSYC 405 Week 5 DB Forum 4 Example

Discussion Board Forum 4: Thread and Two Replies

PSYC 405 Group Dynamics, Discussion Board Forum 4 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; the textbook and the journal article are real and described from their published sources; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for PSYC 405.

Thread

At a staff meeting at my workplace last spring, our director proposed moving the busiest shift an hour earlier. She asked whether anyone objected. Nobody spoke, the change passed and within a week three coworkers told me privately that they thought it was a mistake. Why did a room of capable adults go along? None of them was shy in the break room, and two had worked there longer than the director had.

Forsyth (2017) describes Asch's classic line-judgment studies, in which a lone volunteer, seated near the end of a row of the experimenter's accomplices, heard them one after another name a clearly mismatched line as equal to the standard on preplanned critical trials. Participants frequently went along with the majority on those trials, although most also resisted on many trials. Forsyth distinguishes two sources of such influence: informational influence, in which people treat others' responses as evidence about what is correct, and normative influence, in which people go along to avoid standing out or being rejected.

Bond and Smith (1996) brought together 133 studies from 17 countries that used Asch's task or close variations. Within the American studies, the rate of yielding fell steadily from the 1950s onward, and across countries, collectivist cultures tended to show higher levels of conformity than individualist cultures. The authors argued that conformity research must attend to culture, since what looks like weakness in one setting may reflect a value placed on harmony in another.

My staff meeting seems to fit normative influence best. No one doubted that they had an opinion; they doubted that disagreeing in front of the director was safe. Unlike Asch's participants, they were not judging a line but weighing a relationship with someone who controlled their schedules, which also brings in the power processes discussed in chapter 8. Her question, asked to the whole room at once, also made any objection public, the condition under which normative pressure is strongest.

Classmates: what would it have taken for one coworker to speak up first?

Reply to Gabriela

Gabriela, you suggested that a single coworker speaking up would have changed the meeting, and the research supports you. Forsyth (2017) notes that conformity in Asch's studies dropped sharply when even one other person broke from the majority, because the dissenter showed that disagreement was possible. Your idea also fits what Bond and Smith (1996) found about context: conformity depends on the setting, not only on the individual. A director could build in dissent, perhaps by asking two people to list concerns before any vote, or by collecting anonymous feedback after meetings. That would let normative pressure ease without anyone having to be the first lone voice in the room.

Reply to Terrence

Terrence, you argued that conformity is not always a weakness, and I agree. Forsyth (2017) points out that informational influence is often reasonable; when others know more than we do, following their lead is sensible, as when new employees copy experienced coworkers' safety habits. Bond and Smith (1996) also caution against treating higher conformity in collectivist cultures as a flaw, since it may reflect a commitment to group harmony. The problem arises when people conform to judgments they privately believe are wrong, as in the line studies and my staff meeting. Maybe the useful question is not whether people conform but whether they still say what they actually see.

References

Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111

Forsyth, D. R. (2017). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage.