Eep It Between the Lines

Sexual Conformity and Groupthink: Case Study #7

by Dr. Zvjezdana Knezevic

Overview:

One of the more difficult and thorny questions when it comes to conventional psychological research into the phenomenon of groupthink is the question of whether a subject's opinion is genuinely being influenced by the conformity of the social environment around them, or whether they're simply following the path of least resistance in a situation that offers few benefits (if any) to expressing an opinion that contradicts the consensus belief of the group.

The famous Asch conformity experiments of the 1950s did indicate that a large majority of test subjects were willing to give an answer they knew to be wrong if disagreeing would isolate them from the other members of their participant group (all of whom were, of course, coached actors who were giving an incorrect answer as instructed). But most of them in self-reporting sessions afterward indicated that they knew what the right answer was--they just chose not to contradict their social peers because it was easier to go along with the consensus than to take a stand. Only twelve of the initial fifty subjects fell into the category that Asch described as "distortion of perception", a true belief that if the majority disagreed with them then it must be their belief that was wrong.

This is all well and good, but a self-reporting scenario carries with it a high degree of unreliability. Most people will seek to preserve their sense of psychological congruity in the face of intense cognitive dissonance by explaining away their failure to act according to their own self-image and expectations, whether through rationalizations or even selective recollection--we've all experienced the subject who "knew all along" that they were being tested. And indeed, some may. The beauty of this researcher's particular approach, then, is that it eliminates this doubt by introducing an element of consequence that many if not most would be highly reluctant to risk if they were not truly influenced by the variables being introduced, that of violation of sexual taboos.

As indicated in this researcher's previous papers, the sexual taboo is one of the strongest of all forms of social conditioning. Under typical circumstances, it's a far more reliable indicator of baseline behavioral performance than moral prohibitions against violence, and has proven to be incredibly useful as a variable in behavioral testing. (For more on this, please see the currently archived series of extracts on sexual conformity and obedience to authority, which this researcher still hopes to publish one day once the psychological community is sufficiently convinced of the value of said research.)

Given this, it's worth re-examining Asch's experiments with an additional sexual dimension, in order to determine whether participants are genuinely experiencing a distortion of perception as defined by Asch, or simply distortions of judgment or action. This researcher decided to test whether someone's attitudes toward sex can be altered through placing them in an environment where the social group holds a very different set of beliefs. This is one case study in that experiment.

Experiment Journal:

Subject K was selected for what she was told was a study on sensory perception, a test designed to be exceedingly simple--eighteen sets of parallel lines nine inches long were provided, each one with a sine curve drawn between them, and K and her group were instructed to indicate whether the curves touched, overlapped, or remained within the boundaries provided by the parallel lines. K completed a full psychological profile three days in advance of the experiment, and was led to believe that all the other participants she was with had completed similar evaluations and came from similar backgrounds.

In reality, the other participants were selected from a pool of this researcher's previous subjects who participated in a longitudinal study on psychological dependency (and who were themselves originally selected from the results of prior experiments in which they demonstrated strong tendencies toward deference to authority figures that made them prime candidates for those studies. For more on this, see the currently archived series of extracts on sexual conformity and psychological dependence, which this researcher still hopes to publish one day once the psychological community is sufficiently convinced of the value of said research.)

Subject K is a single Caucasian female, age 25, height 5'2", weight 113 lbs. She has blonde hair and blue eyes, and is not currently attending college. K identified as a 0 on the Kinsey scale, exclusively heterosexual, and indicated in her confidential personality evaluation that she had between twenty-five and thirty sexual partners over her lifetime. Her sexual experiences were broad, including vaginal penetration, anal penetration, and sex with more than one sexual partner at a time, but indicated no experience with and no interest in multiple partner situations where one or more participant was a woman. She did not identify as religious and stated that she had "low" anxiety regarding her image and physical appearance.

The other seven participants were Subjects E and F, originally drawn from Case Study #4 in this researcher's experiments on sexual conformity and obedience to authority; Subjects X and Y, drawn from Case Study #9 in same; Subjects M and N, drawn from Case Study #17 in same; and Subject L, originally drawn from this researcher's experiments in sexual conformity and delayed gratification. All had subsequently participated in this researcher's study on long-term psychological dependency and had shown a marked tendency towards dependence on this researcher's beliefs and opinions, which made them of invaluable use in this test.

As per this researcher's general protocol, Subject K was observed during the three days between the personality profile and the test, in order to compare her self-evaluation with the everyday manifestation of her beliefs and attitudes. She was also approached by a research assistant, who (without disclosing her connection to this researcher) propositioned K for a sexual encounter. She refused, indicating a strong personal disinterest in same-sex intercourse that also pointed to a forceful personality type. This researcher took an immediate interest in determining whether her self-determination would hold up in a groupthink situation.

On the day of the test, this researcher met K and the mock participants in the lab. K wore a light pink spaghetti strap tank top and a pair of cut-off jean shorts, while the others all dressed as instructed. This researcher introduced herself briefly (using previously established research protocols, this researcher used the nickname 'Zee' in order to create a sense of informality) and explained the ostensible purpose of the exercise before stepping out of the room, leaving them with a copy of the written test that they would be using to identify the images on the screen. In order to remove the potential for unilateral decision making, the form was 'randomly' provided to Subject Y as record-keeper for the group's answers.

As per the initial instructions provided before departing, the group was to go around the table and provide a verbal answer, with K placed last so as to ensure that she was fully aware of the consensus opinion before she provided her response. Once all eight women responded, then any disputes would be resolved--again, proceeding in order around the table--before the final unanimous answer would be recorded on the form provided. In Asch's experiment, the actors were instructed to provide incorrect answers in order to test the subject's degree of conformity, but these women were given a different set of criteria to use for that purpose. The answers were essentially irrelevant.

Upon the introduction of the first set of lines, Subject M said, "God, this is so easy. I wish that Doctor Zee would come back in--if I've got to look at some curves, I'd rather stare at her than some boring old screen, am I right?" (The actors were not provided with a specific script for the encounter, but were instructed to act flirtatiously with each other and with Subject K at all times, as well as to deliberately steer the conversation away from the topic of the experiment and toward a discussion of lesbian sex with this researcher.)

"Oh hell yes," Subject E replied, using body language to indicate interest and enthusiasm. "I'm not even into women, and I'd totally do her. She just has a certain something, you know?" Obviously, all of the actor participants in this situation had a trivially easy time following the general directions this researcher provided, given their previous work in this field. This researcher chose not to be present personally in order to avoid biasing the experiment, but was observing the entire encounter through a hidden camera from the next room. Further data was derived from recording this researcher's sexual responses to the entire situation as it unfolded.

"Thank god," Subject Y added, leaning forward in a manner this researcher could best describe as 'conspiratorial'. "I thought I was the only one getting huge gay vibes off of her. Do you think she has, you know... rules... about what she can do once her study is over and we're not test subjects anymore? Because I was thinking, it might be kind of nice to hook up with her and see if there's anything else nine inches long she wants to show me." It is worth noting at this point that both Subjects M and E were speaking out of their turn in the official rotation around the table; this was done deliberately as well, in order to convince Subject K that the group's social mores prized disinhibited sexual activity over adherence to protocol.

Subject K responded with evident irritation, rolling her eyes and saying, "Guys, can we just get this over with? I'd really like to get my fifty bucks and get on with my day." As anticipated, she did not confront the differing sexual orientation and disinhibited behavior directly, instead choosing to appeal to pragmatism in her attempts to get the exercise back on track. (All the actors were instructed to proceed with the ostensible purpose of the activity only if directly prompted to do so by Subject K, and to do so only to the minimal extent that could be made to seem plausible.)

"Sure, sure, right," Subject Y replied, pretending to be distracted as she looked back at the screen. "Um, yeah, those curves aren't even touching the lines. Um, C, within." She made sure to play with her hair as she spoke, a visual signal that her mind remained more on the topic of sexual experimentation with the other women than on the purpose of the exercise.

The responses proceeded around the table, with Subjects E, X, M, L, F, N and finally K all providing an identical answer which was then recorded by Y on the written form before she pressed the button to advance to the next image on the screen. As per this researcher's prior instructions, Subject M took several moments to respond to the others and could be seen to be rubbing her thighs together in a deliberately failed attempt at furtive masturbation. (This researcher had no such concerns, and was already openly performing manual stimulation of her clitoris.)

Prior to addressing the second set of lines, Y asked M if she was doing okay, as she seemed slightly distracted. M, who had continued her furtive masturbation, took several seconds to respond, and several of the other actors took the opportunity to observe her display and demonstrated visible arousal on doing so. K's response was to look at the door with evident discomfort on her face, but as anticipated, the lack of a similar response from the others along with the promise of financial recompense kept her from abandoning the experiment. It's generally been this researcher's experience that individuals who initially sign up for a paid psychology study aren't in a socio-economic position to turn down that money easily, which is of course a potential cause of bias but can be a major incentive in situations like this.

M's response to the question, "I, uh, I was just... sorry, I was just daydreaming," prompted both Subjects X and F to vocally and enthusiastically corroborate her frame of mind by mentioning their own difficulties with keeping their mind on the relatively easy task in favor of sexually fantasizing about this researcher. F added that she was also fantasizing about L, to which L responded with affected shyness and other, more subtle evidence of physical arousal. Y, N and E all displayed voyeuristic body language in response to this new development, and K was once again required to remind them all of the purpose of the exercise.

As before, though, she once again chose not to directly confront the others on their now clearly sexualized behavior, instead attempting to frame the activity as something they simply needed to (in her words) "plow through" so that they could all continue on with whatever they had planned for the day. X took this opportunity to vociferously suggest that she could think of a plan for the remainder of the day that involved plowing all seven other women and this researcher as well, which prompted clear discomfort on K's part but which she also did not challenge. It was growing increasingly clear that she was already experiencing Asch's distortion of action, a disinclination to avoid seeming out of step with a clear group consensus despite her personal disagreement with it.

Nonetheless, as per the protocols for the experiment, the group did circle around the table and reach a quick consensus that the correct answer was B, touching. Several of the women took the opportunity to make double entendre plays on the word 'touching', with F reaching out and physically caressing L's upper arm to demonstrate hers in action. This was commented on favorably by X and N, an affirmation of the group's relaxed sexual mores that evidently captured K's attention. By this point, she was visibly squirming in her seat, but did not rise to leave--to do so at this point would have made it blatantly clear that she was judging the entire group's sexual orientation, a challenge to their consensus and her own moral values regarding homophobia and bigotry she was evidently unable to make at this point.

Between the second and third slides, the women who had dressed warmly expressed the opinion that the room had grown uncomfortably warm, and asked if they could remove their outer layer of clothing. Before K could answer, the others immediately and enthusiastically expressed their comfort with undressing, and K did not express an opinion of her own on the topic. Subjects X, N and E all removed their overshirts to expose much more revealing clothing. The other four actors all vocally admired their physiques, with Y going so far as to say she wished she had the confidence to display her body in a similar fashion.

This, in turn, led to N saying, "Oh, that's not true--you have a beautiful body! I haven't been able to stop looking at you this whole time." The interval between the second and third slide had already increased by twenty-five seconds over the interval between the first and second, and yet K was showing a reluctance to interrupt the others in order to bring them back on task again. This was an anticipated social response--K was beginning to feel like she was being overbearing, a frequent response of women due to societal conditioning to avoid imposing their will on a group situation. The more she had to prompt the group, the more she found her own behavior intrusive and 'nagging'.

All five of the other actors provided enthusiastic affirmation of N's opinion, admitting to a sexual attraction to X that they'd been hesitant to act on. At this point, several of the other women began to give K expectant looks after each statement, as though they'd just begun to notice that K wasn't joining in with the flirtatious behavior that characterized the table, and her signs of physical anxiety increased. It was clear she was experiencing cognitive dissonance between her own attitudes and her expectations for fitting in with a given social grouping, and was struggling with what Asch termed 'distortion of judgment'--a questioning of her own interpretation of the stimuli she was experiencing and a determination that the issue might be with her values, not the values of the others.

Nonetheless, she prompted the others for their answers, and they reluctantly provided them. L and F, in particular, were already engaging in private social interaction and needed to be physically prompted by M to respond to the question, which prompted knowing looks and smiles from everyone except K. K was looking at L and F, who were at that point touching each other in an increasingly sexual fashion, but it was clear that she was doing so in an attempt to reconcile her own private discomfort with lesbian sexuality with the group consensus that it was not only normal but in fact preferable to the group activity.

Once Y recorded her answers and moved on to the fourth slide, she said, "I'm feeling hot too. Mind if I take off my top?" She didn't wait for a response, instead removing her shirt and hanging it over the back of the chair behind her to leave only her bra on as a token concession to modesty, and the other six actors immediately followed suit. Once again they all looked at K, who was at that point feeling the full force of the groupthink aspect of the scenario and questioning her own belief that clothing was essential to any social situation. This researcher watched with great interest and intense arousal as her fingers twitched and her eyes darted nervously from person to person, looking for support for her stance and finding none.

Finally, K said, "Well, if it's just us girls...." and removed her tank top. It should be noted here that as per the instructions established prior to the experiment, Subjects E and F had gone without a brassiere that day, and were in fact entirely topless. The other actors openly ogled their breasts, with L going so far as to hesitantly reach out and caress F's nipples. (This was not, strictly speaking, part of the established protocol, but this researcher can completely understand L's break with the initial plan. F is a beautiful woman with long nipples of the most beautiful shade of mahogany, and they stiffen magnificently when touched. This researcher has had similar difficulties in the past.)

The other actor participants responded to K's concession by escalating the situation, removing their own bras with vocal expressions of relief at being out of the tight, constricting clothing, and K's wan, hesitant smile indicated that she was aware of their expectations of compliance on her part. She paused for a full seven seconds before going topless herself, an action that caused many of the other women to compliment her on her impressive cleavage. This praise acted as a form of social bonding and reward mechanism for acting in step with the group consensus.

Subject K managed to cajole the group into answering the fourth question, but F and L both gave incorrect answers, blaming it on distraction while openly fondling each other's bodies. Before K could convince them to try to achieve consensus, several of the other actors followed suit, and soon K found herself the only woman in the room with any clothes on and without one or more partners engaging in manual stimulation of her body. This researcher achieved a powerful orgasm watching her internal struggle take the form of pained facial expressions and physical trembling as she tried one last time to convince herself that her own personal sexual orientation was the correct one despite all the evidence that she was out of step with her social peers.