Experimental investigation of behaviour in social situations: I. Behaviour under opposition.

Abstract

THIS is a report of the first of a series of experiments on personality and social correlates of the social behaviour of individuals. It outlines briefly the theoretical framework of the project and reports on the "opposition" situation, in which each subject had to debate a topic with two others, both of whom, by previous arrangement, uncompromisingly opposed his opinion.The experimental situations were designed on the basis of a provisional theory of social behaviour, which includes concepts from Eysenck (5) and the writer's previous investigation (1), translated into the generalized framework of Hullian behaviour theory (7,14). This generalization of behaviour theory is regarded as a first approximation to an eventual theory of the social behaviour of individuals, verification of which is being sought through testing of hypotheses deduced from it (4). A formal statement of the theory has been prepared in mathematical form and will be published when sufficiently matured. In this paper, only a brief outline of relevant concepts is given to indicate how situations were constructed and predictions derived. Complete derivations of hypotheses cannot be given without statement of all assumptions, which is not practicable here. OUTLINE OF THE THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCEThe performance of a person in a group situation is regarded as a function of his personality traits and of the behaviour of other group members. It is assumed that a social situation, and the behaviour of Research done under National Health Grants, Project no. 605-5-124 (to Professor J. D. Ketchum). 2 The writer is indebted to Professor J. D. Ketchum for suggesting the general area of research, certain situational settings, and the use of role-playing assistants, and also for advice and help throughout the experiments. Sincere thanks are due to those who kindly read this paper in draft: Professors J. W. Lovett Doust and H. A. Shephard, Mr. M. Humphries, and particularly Dr. R. B. Bromiley, who is responsible for many crucial improvements in the text; to the students who served as assistants and observers; and -to Joan Cervin for editorial help and typing.

Two forms of social conformity: Acquiescence and conventionality.

“…Neuroticism. The consensus of opinion with regard to neuroticism seems to be that although independent nonconformists admit to having more neurotic tendencies when questioned more or less directly (2,9,15), it is the conformers who are perhaps really more neurotic (10,14). Using the Maudsley Personality Inventory designed by C. M. Fransk (11), it was predicted that this simple and rather obvious self-rating procedure would show the conformers to be less neurotic.…”

Individual behavior in social situations: its relation to anxiety, neuroticism, and group solidarity.

“…Using one S with role-playing assistants who pose as Ss, however, one can devise social laboratory conditions analogous to those in learning and conditioning experiments: aversive stimuli (shock) can be produced and kept constant by aversive behavior of assistants, e.g., their opposition to S; positive (rewarding) stimuli, e.g., food, can be replicated by assistants' approving or accepting behavior. Aversive and approving behavior of "other" individuals in social situations operationally defines the hypothetical construct of solidarity of group members (3). Solidarity proper is conceptualized as mutual giving of positive, and dissolidarity of negative, secondary reinforcement by individuals in social situations.…”

Chapter IV: Speaking

“…Research interest in this area increased; it can be grouped in two broad categories: (a) the interaction of speaker and audience and (b) the interaction between audience members. In the first group, studies by Cervin (20,21), Field (37), Peters (79), Verplanck (100), and Zimmerman and Bauer (109) supported and defined interaction between speaker and audience. In the second group, studies by Kelley and Woodruff (65), Rosenbaum and Blake (86), and Luchins and Luchins (73,74) supported the claim of auditor-auditor interaction.…”