Conformity
CONFORMITY
Definition of Conformity
Cultural Context:
The concept of conformity varies by cultural context.
In Western cultures, conformity is often perceived negatively. It is associated with individual weakness, implying an inability to resist societal pressures to express the self.
In Eastern cultures, the connotation is more positive, representing personal strength and restraint, highlighting sensitivity to the community and promoting social cooperation.
Definition of Conformity:
Conformity is defined as “a change in behavior or belief in accord with others.”
It is more complex than mere mimicry; it involves alterations to behavior and cognitive processes compared to one’s baseline behavior when alone.
Three Main Types of Conformity:
Compliance:
Definition: “Conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing.”
Obedience:
Definition: “Acting in accord with a direct order.”
Acceptance:
Definition: “Conformity that involves acting and believing in accord with social pressure.”
Classic Conformity Studies
Sherif's Study (1930s)
Objective:
Muzafer Sherif aimed to explore the emergence of social norms through controlled laboratory experiments, focusing on human suggestibility.
Methodology:
Employed the autokinetic phenomenon: the apparent movement of a stationary point of light in the dark.
Participants were placed in a dark room and asked to estimate how far the light moved (it did not move).
In follow-up sessions, they rejoined other participants and their distance estimates converged over time.
Findings:
The influence of social environments on judgment was profound; social norms established by a confederate persisted across multiple generations of new participants (lasting an average of 5 generations).
This highlighted the suggestibility of human judgment under social conditions.
Asch's Conformity Experiments
Experiment Design:
Participants were placed last in a group of confederates who first gave correct responses before switching entirely to incorrect answers.
Results:
¾ (75%) of participants conformed at least once; overall, 37% of the total responses were conforming to incorrect answers.
Notably, the correct response rate when participants were alone was 99%.
Although a majority of participants did not conform, a significant number knowingly answered incorrectly due to the prior influence of confederates.
No external coercion was involved, showcasing the power of social suggestion.
Wider Implications:
The findings led to further research in social psychology across various contexts, including health behaviors and decision-making.
An example of normative conformity was shown in a 2013 incident in Canada, where students sang about sexual abuse against minors, influenced by group dynamics.
Milgram's Obedience Studies
Overview:
This experiment investigated obedience to authority figures through a scenario involving punishment for incorrect answers.
Experimental Setup:
Participants, assuming they were part of a learning study, were assigned the role of 'teacher' and instructed to administer electric shocks to a 'learner' for incorrect responses.
Shocks began mild and increased with each mistake, ultimately reaching 450 volts (marked by XXX).
Despite visible suffering from the learner (a confederate), a substantial percentage of participants continued to deliver shocks.
Findings:
Out of 40 male participants, 65% went to the maximum shock level, even after being informed that the learner had a heart condition, with 63% complying under those circumstances.
Compliance rates were similar for women.
Cultural Impact:
At the time of the study, concerns about morality post-Nuremberg Trials heightened the ethical scrutiny of psychological experiments.
The study raised questions about the morality of means versus ends in research ethics.
Factors Influencing Obedience (Milgram's Findings)
Emotional Distance:
Obedience was higher when the victim could not be seen.
Physical Proximity:
Obedience increased when the authority figure was present in the room, dropping to 21% when giving orders via telephone.
Legitimacy of Authority:
Obedience increased when the authority figure was perceived as legitimate.
A significant decrease in obedience occurred when commands were given by a clerk instead of a researcher.
Group Influence:
The presence of dissenting confederates reduced obedience rates to 10%.
Normative influence can lead to positive behaviors or ethical standpoints.
Behavioral and Attitudinal Dynamics
Obedience Mechanics:
Obedience involves direct commands and often coercion from authoritative figures.
The foot-in-the-door phenomenon illustrates how small initial compliance can lead to larger requests.
Examples of Compliance Leading to Obsession:
Cases such as the McDonald’s incident and government-sanctioned torture show how compliance can escalate into severe ethical violations.
However, positive compliance can foster altruism.
Predicting Conformity Factors
Contributions to Conformity
Group Size:
Conformity peaks at groups of 3 to 5 before diminishing returns are noted at larger sizes, which create a ceiling effect.
Smaller subgroups increase perceived normativity and credibility.
Unanimity:
Unanimous groups enforce conformity; the presence of even one dissenter significantly encourages individual dissent.
Status:
High-status individuals exert more influence than those of lower status within a conformity context.
Public Response:
Publicly presenting responses tends to trigger higher conformity compared to private settings.
As demonstrated in Asch’s experiment, correct responses spiked when participants wrote them down privately.
Prior Commitment:
Those who’ve previously committed publicly to a stance against the norm are less likely to conform.
Reasons for Conformity
Normative Influence:
Desire to gain acceptance and avoid social rejection drives many towards conformity.
Informational Influence:
Seeking important information leads individuals to conform when external cues regarding reality are presented.
Social Rejection:
Deviating from group norms leads to social punishment, which many may wish to avoid despite internal disagreements.
Individuals rely on group input, particularly when facing ambiguity in their environment, as exemplified in Sherif’s studies.
Neurophysiological Differences:
Normative influence engages emotional centers of the brain related to anxiety and social rejection, while informational influence engages perception processes for assessing stimuli.
Combined Influence:
Conforming behavior alters personal perception to justify conformity.
Identifying Who Conforms
Factors Influencing Individual Differences in Conformity
Personality:
Personality demonstrated weak correlations in initial studies, but later studies linked it to broader tendencies rather than specific acts of conformity.
It is a stronger predictor when social influences are minimal.
Culture:
Studies by Asch and Milgram showcased variations in conformity based on cultural background.
Collectivist cultures foster conformity for social harmony whereas individualistic cultures empower independence.
Evolutionarily, cultures with high pathogen prevalence have historically shown higher conformity due to health-related norms.
Differences are also observed within societies based on socioeconomic status, influencing conformity assessments.
Gender:
Historical research shows that neither gender distinctly outconforms the other.
Some studies suggest slight increases in women's conformity, influenced by social pressure dynamics.
Normative versus informational influences may differ based on the gender-dominant context of research and roles.
Social Roles:
Social roles distinctly ladder behaviors, imposing conformity pressures based on situational expectations.
Individuals may internalize these behaviors, affecting their conformity sequences in various roles.
Immigrants may experience re-conforming phases due to cultural pressures.
Non-Conformity and the Need for Autonomy
Need for Autonomy:
Individuals demonstrate non-conformity when autonomy or competence feels threatened, potentially creating an “anti-conformity boomerang effect.”
Psychological reactance exemplifies this, encapsulating a need to restore personal freedom often provoked by external pressures.
Behavioral Impact:
Under pressure, individuals may resist conformity to the detriment of themselves or others (e.g., underage drinking) but can also lead to positive behavior alterations when supported.
Individuality versus Conformity
Awareness of Difference:
Individuals often experience discomfort in recognizing their differences, whether related to gender or ethnicity.
Conversely, similarity brings discomfort to individuals in Western cultures, leading them to emphasize individuality.
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory:
Asserts a continual search for balance between group inclusion and unique distinction, promoting a middle ground of moderation sought by individuals.
Contextual Application:
Factors amplifying minority status within a group can heighten situational awareness and behaviors.
This theory can be insightful in examining contemporary social challenges.
Practice Scenarios and Questions
Practice Scenario 1: Lilith's Dilemma
Context:
Lilith attends a sorority meeting discussing a condemnation letter regarding morphine legalization. Prominent members voted in support of a negative stance while she privately disagrees.
Practice Questions
What factors would promote conformity in the scenario?
What factors would inhibit conformity in the scenario?
Practice Scenario 2: Sam's Experiment
Context:
Sam participates in an obedience experiment, tasked with administering shocks to a distressed learner.
Practice Questions
What factors would promote obedience in the scenario?
What factors would inhibit obedience in the scenario?