Fighting peer pressure with "polite expression of doubt"

[HowToBe]

This is a bit of useful science regarding peer pressure. In an experiment each individual test subject was placed in a room full of others who were all instructed to give an obviously wrong answer to the question, "Which of these three lines is the same length as the line in the other picture?" As a result, two thirds of the test subjects gave the same, wrong, answer. But when one of the "fake" group members expressed polite doubt (and chose the correct answer), 95% of the test subjects gave the correct answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-U6QTRTZSc

https://youtu.be/1-U6QTRTZSc

We've seen this sort of thing here on the forum in recent times, I think, when only after one person expressed a doubt did several, or many, others chime in with theirs. And of course we may face it in our everyday lives all the time. Being the person to express the polite doubt, in the right circumstances (not necessarily always), might be an externally considerate way to inject a little objective information into the interactions we find ourselves in. It sort of sounds like it breaks down a barrier to others expressing their free will.

On another note, this is also interesting in light of Bernaysian style thought/behavior control. It means that "little" voices like SOTT and aware individuals could have a potentially very powerful transformative effect on the peer pressure created by the media and social programming. OSIT.

The study does raise questions for me: In the test, line C was the correct answer, but all of the "fake" testees chose A, and the "polite doubter" in the test case chose C. What if they had been instructed to equally choose A or B, but never C? Or, what if the "polite doubter" still chose an incorrect answer, B? How would that effect the results? It would be very confusing to the test subject.

 

[Adobe]

Thank you HowToBe, that's a great video and I'm going to put it to use in my little circle of influence.

 

[Shared Joy]

Thank you for posting it, HowToBe, as is both a good example of how to influence and a method to correct an influence.
Joy

 

[Buddy]

Interesting material, thanks for posting.

The study does raise questions for me: In the test, line C was the correct answer, but all of the "fake" testees chose A, and the "polite doubter" in the test case chose C. What if they had been instructed to equally choose A or B, but never C? Or, what if the "polite doubter" still chose an incorrect answer, B? How would that effect the results? It would be very confusing to the test subject.

I think if they had been instructed to choose a or b but never c, then there probably wouldn't be much pressure. If the 'polite doubter' chose b, then the threatened consequences would be diluted and that would make it easier to make the correct, but dissenting, answer.

My thinking is based on the assumption that peer pressure is pressure to provide the same wrong answer to avoid feeling isolated and alone and maybe helpless against a crowd. If my assumption is correct, then multiple people giving multiple wrong answers helps create a safer environment to be a dissenter. Even one person, the 'polite doubter' in this case, giving a wrong answer gives more of a "we vs them" feeling than a "me against all them" feeling and that's what I meant by the threat being diluted.

Does that make sense? Does anyone else have thoughts about this way of thinking about peer pressure?