Conformity

11 Key excerpts on "Conformity"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Beings

  Core Motives in Social Psychology

  • Susan T. Fiske(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Operational Definitions Conformity In studying Conformity, social psychologists build on work by Muzafer Sherif (1936) on the autokinetic effect and Solomon Asch (1955) on line judgments. Recall from Chapter 1 that Sherif’s groups developed norms to interpret the optical illusion of an isolated point of light seeming to move in a dark space. Recall also from Chapter 1 that Asch’s participants sometimes went along with the group’s erroneous judgment of line lengths, despite the evidence of their eyes. Conformity is such a basic process that measures can include even brain signatures for socially conforming memories of an event (Edelson, Sharot, Dolan, & Dudai, 2011). Conformity research has long used group settings, sometimes with confederates giving prear- ranged answers. It typically has measured agreement with an erroneous or arbitrary norm (e.g., Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990). Clearly, Conformity is more obvious when people under group pressure answer in ways they would not ordinarily. Control groups demon- strate this difference, the effect of group pressure, by having confederates absent or not giving wrong answers. In some field studies, the confederates are absent, but evidence of other people’s 430 SOCIAL INFLUENCE: DOING WHAT OTHERS DO AND SAY behavior appears, for example, in the amount of litter left behind (recall Cialdini et al.’s studies from Chapter 9).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social Influences

  • Kevin Wren(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  2

  Conformity

  Introduction Mustafer Sherif and informational social influences Solomon Asch and normative social influences Informational and normative influences Richard Crutchfield Conformity/non-Conformity and physiology Factors that may influence the degree of Conformity Evaluation of Conformity experiments Explaining the Conformity effect Summary

  Introduction

  Throughout our daily lives we conform, i.e. we behave in response to the perceived pressure of others. We queue, wait at bus stops and conform to road signs. In other situations our Conformity is subtler. When in a group we often ‘go with the flow’ while at the same time having some private reservations about what we are doing. In such face-to-face contact with a group we are under pressure to conform to the beliefs, actions and attitudes of the ‘greater’ group. In this respect our behaviour can be governed by a number of social influences of which obedience and Conformity to group influences are examples. We need to be careful here not to confuse behaviour changed as a result of Conformity and behaviour changed as a result of obedience. Although definitions differ slightly from psychologist to psychologist the following differences can be observed:

  •  In Conformity situations behaviour changes as a result of group pressure, despite there being no explicit requirement on the part of individual participants to change. In this respect behaviour within the group becomes more homogenous.

  •  In obedience situations behaviour changes as a result of the explicit instructions of an authority figure, i.e. the experimenter. In this respect behaviour arises out of the fact that social structure is differentiated, i.e. the experimenter begins with a higher status. (after Evans, 1980)

  In this chapter we are going to examine material that deals with behaviour altered as a result of manipulating group pressure, i.e. Conformity.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, Hazel Markus, , Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, Hazel Markus(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  But there is a second reason why people do not see themselves as conformist. In a series of studies, Emily Pronin and others (2007) found that people perceive others to be more conforming than themselves in all sorts of domains—from why they bought an iPad to why they hold a popular opinion. Part of the reason for this asymmetry is that people judge others by their overt behavior and the degree to which it matches what others do, but they tend to judge themselves by focusing inward and introspecting about their thought processes, which blinds them to their own Conformity. People understandably have mixed feelings about Conformity. On the one hand, adherence to social norms is necessary if individuals are to maintain communities and coexist peacefully, as when people assume their rightful place in a waiting line. Yet at other times, Conformity can have harmful con- sequences, as when people drink too heavily at parties, cheat on taxes, or tell offensive jokes because others are doing the same. For the social psycholo- gist, the goal is to understand the conditions that promote Conformity versus independence and the reasons for these behaviors. To this day, perhaps now more than ever, this topic fascinates social psychologists (see Van Kleef et al., 2019). Conformity The tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with social or group norms. Copyright 2021 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Psychology for Nurses and Health Professionals

  • Richard Gross, Nancy Kinnison(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  171 Conformity and group influence 8 Introduction and overview It is impossible to live among other people and not be influenced by them in some way. According to Allport (1968), social psychology as a discipline can be defined as ‘an attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feel-ings and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others’. Sometimes, other people’s attempts to change our thoughts or behaviour are very obvious, as when, for example, a ward manager tells a student nurse to attend to a particular patient. If we do as we are told, we are demonstrat-ing obedience , which implies that one person (in this example, the ward man-ager, an authority figure) has more social power than others (student nurses). Obedience is discussed in Chapter 9. In common with obedience, other forms of active social influence involve deliberate attempts by one person to change another’s thoughts or behaviour. However, on other occasions, social influence is less direct and deliber-ate and may not involve any explicit requests or demands at all. For example, sometimes the mere presence of other people can influence our behaviour, either inhibiting or enhancing it. Another form of indirect or passive social influence occurs when, for instance, your taste in music is affected by what your friends listen to. This is Conformity . Your peers (equals) exert pressure on you to behave (and think) in particular ways, a case of the majority influencing the individual ( major-ity influence ). But majorities can also be influenced by minorities ( minority influence ).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Encyclopedia of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations

  • John M Levine, Michael A. Hogg, John M. Levine, Michael Hogg(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Together, Sherif’s and Asch’s studies stimulated a tremendous amount of interest in when and why groups elicit Conformity from their members. Scores of studies have been conducted on this topic in the years since their groundbreaking research was published, and much has been learned. Definitional and Measurement Issues As noted above, we define Conformity as change in a person’s perceptions, beliefs, or actions in the direction of a perceived group norm. Although seemingly straightforward, this definition masks several complexities regarding how Conformity is conceptualized and measured. Movement Versus Agreement Conformity Defining Conformity in terms of change is use-ful, because it allows us to differentiate Conformity from behavioral uniformity, which involves inde-pendent agreement in the absence of perceived group pressure. Simply knowing that a person agrees with a group norm at one point in time does not allow us to make a confident judgment about the source of that agreement. Perhaps the person independently arrived at the group’s position with-out any knowledge of the group norm or any desire to adhere to it—an instance of behavioral uniformity. In contrast, knowing that the person disagreed with the group at Time 1 and then shifted toward it at Time 2 would increase our confidence that the group exerted influence on the person—an instance of Conformity. This is espe-cially true if others who shared the person’s initial position, but were not exposed to group pressure, failed to change their position. Although the criterion of movement is useful in defining Conformity, it has potential pitfalls. For example, in some cases a person who indepen-dently agrees with a group norm but is tempted to abandon it may fail to take this action because of group pressure.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Real World Psychology

  • Catherine A. Sanderson, Karen R. Huffman(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  (Participants in a control group experienced no group pressure and almost always chose correctly.) Asch’s study has been conducted in at least 17 countries, and the amount of Conformity has varied depending upon factors such as age and personality (Mori et al., 2014; Tennen et al., 2013; Trautmann-Lengsfeld & Hermann, 2014). Using a similar Asch research setup, researchers found that some participants were even willing to adjust their moral deci- sions when faced with social pressure (Kundu & Cummins, 2013). It’s important to note that two-thirds of the participants did NOT conform on at least one trial, and 25 percent consistently defied the majority opinion on all trials (Griggs, 2015a). However, out- side experimental labs, Conformity in the real world is still a widespread and generally beneficial part of our daily lives. Just think of what might happen if most people refused to conform to our basic societal rules and norms while driving, shopping, or even in your college classroom. Still, to the onlooker, Conformity is often difficult to understand. Even the conformer sometimes has a hard time explaining his or her behavior. Let’s look at three factors that drive Conformity: • Normative social influence Have you ever asked what others are wearing to a party, or copied your neighbor at a dinner party to make sure you picked up the right fork? One of the first rea- sons we conform is that we want to go along with group norms, which are expected behaviors generally adhered to by members of a group. A study of Twitter, for instance, found that tweeters are more likely to share a tweet if it already has a high number of retweets (Lee & Oh, 2017). We generally submit to this type of normative social influence out of our need for approval and acceptance by the group. Furthermore, conforming to group norms makes us feel good and it’s often more adaptive to conform (Feeney et al., 2017; Shang et al., 2017).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Tyranny of Opinion

  Conformity and the Future of Liberalism

  • Russell Blackford(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  Conformity AND ITS LIMITS Conformity, pro and con In Making the Social World , John Searle observes that there seems to be a ‘human urge to conform, to be like other people and to be accepted by them as a member of the group’ – and this provides our motivation to accept the institutions and conventions that constitute our social reality (2010: 108). In large part, the urge is benign, and human societies could not function without it. In many situations some convention must be agreed on, whether it’s the values assigned to coins and notes in the local currency or an authoritative rule about the correct side of the road to drive on. Conformity does, however, have a downside. It lends itself to tribalism, to punishment of harmless (or even socially helpful) nonconformists, and to demands for unnecessarily uniform speech and action. In most cases, alas, Conformity does not involve reservations and discernment. That is, it does not combine general acceptance of the group’s attitudes, beliefs, and ways of acting and speaking with selective areas of doubt or dissent. Individual Conformity to a group’s values and practices tends to be all or nothing. Individuals within a group tend to develop a tacit consensus on what it looks like to be a prototypical group member. Each member will be more accepted, trusted, and rewarded to the extent that she resembles the prototype. More marginal or peripheral group members – those who diverge from the prototype for whatever reason – are highly vulnerable: They will be viewed as deviants and outcasts rather than people who simply have different opinions and behave in different ways within the group. Diversity is translated into deviance and pathology. (Hogg 2005: 251) 5 80 THE TYRANNY OF OPINION There are penalties for thinking independently, whereas there are social rewards for becoming as much as possible like the prototype – and particularly for imitating the views and behaviours of the group’s leaders.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Psychology

  Selected Papers

  • Gina Rossi(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • IntechOpen

    (Publisher)

  Conformity, Obedience, Disobedience: The Power of the Situation 279 suffer more from the judgment of the group with respect to those given in private, generating in deviants a feeling of shame (Scheff, 1988). In addition this study has shown above all the type of conformism known as acquiescence, since the participants regain independence of judgment, once separated from group pressure. In this case you can speak of false conformism. Naturally, acquiescence and internalization are not phenomena that exclude each other, rather they are understood to be polarities of a continuum. To do something because circumstances force us to do so can in fact induce a change of behaviour compared with what you are doing, as shown by the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). The “Asch effect”, to follow the norms of the group even when they are so clearly against the data of reality, has raised several questions. Besides explanations linked to group processes (informational and normative influence), some authors (for example, Berry 1967; Frager, 1970) have also analyzed the rapport between conformism and socialization. In fact different societies tend to encourage behaviour of independence rather than submission, and viceversa. Otherwise to attach great importance to conformism compared with norms fixed by unknown people. At the same time, every society is characterized by the presence of various sub-cultures, which can orientate its members differently with respect to the dominant culture. For example, homosexuals often conform to the norms of the group they belong to but turn out to be non-conformist compared with the remaining society of heterosexuals. Reference to homosexuals enables us to remember how, next to the influence of the majority, precisely in the studies of Asch, there is also an influence of the minority (Moscovici, 1976).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology

  Concise Student Edition

  • Michael A Hogg, Joel Cooper, Michael A Hogg, Joel Cooper(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  The study of social influence is one of the most fundamental areas of social-psychological inquiry. Social influence refers to the ways in which the opinions and attitudes of one person affect the opinions and attitudes of another person. Although influence can occur between individuals, it is widely seen to operate in the context of social groups, where group members are continually influencing each other through the dynamic formation and change of group norms. Two forms of social influence can be identified within groups, which serve the function of either maintaining group norms (social control) or changing group norms (social change). The dominant form of social control is con-formity, that is, the processes through which an individual accepts (or complies with) the group’s view. Since this line of research examines how a majority can cause an individual to conform to its view, it is often referred to as majority influence . Another process of social control is obedience , whereby individuals obey (often against their free will) an authority figure. However, in order for group norms to change, there must be processes of social change, which often create conflict and are resisted by group members. Processes of social change typically originate from a small subsection of members of the group, and, therefore, the process is often referred to as minority influence . Without active minorities, group opinions would never be challenged, fashions would not change, political campaigns would never succeed, and innovations would be thwarted. Social-influence research has a long tradition in social psychology and the amount of contemporary research, in terms of both pub-lished articles and active scholars, appears to be increasing, reflecting a continued interest in the area. The aim of this chapter is to review research relevant to these areas with particular attention to contemporary emphases and developments.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Key Ideas in Psychology

  • Ian Stuart-Hamilton(Author)
  • 1999(Publication Date)
  • Jessica Kingsley Publishers

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 4 Social Psychology

  Introduction

  Many branches of psychology are concerned with the individual. Either they are concerned with how and why he or she is different from others (e.g. individual differences, mental illness) or how the mind of the individual works (e.g. memory). However, humans are also social creatures, and social psychology is the study of how people interact socially. Arguably, most psychology students are initially attracted to the subject because of one of the applied branches, but it is social psychology which later captures their attention. In part this may be a reaction against the perceived arid nature of many of the other branches of the discipline, with their emphasis on detailed examinations of aspects of mental behaviour which are in everyday life uninteresting (e.g. how we recognise shapes, how we remember lists of numbers, etc). In contrast, social psychology covers many topics which are fascinating in themselves, such as how we make friends and fall in love, or why people join particular groups or cults. In this chapter, an overview of some of the most popular and frequently-cited topics will be given. As with any introductory chapter, not all areas will be covered and those left out are not necessarily of less importance. For those readers interested in pursuing matters further, a reading list is provided at the end of the chapter.

  Conformity, compliance and obedience

  One of the key questions in social psychology is the extent to which people will follow other people’s wishes. Clearly psychologists have not found a foolproof method of doing this, or the world would be controlled by psychologists. However, it would appear that several core methods describe many instances in which people can be made to follow a desired path. These are often categorised into Conformity (adapting one’s behaviour to ‘fit in’ with a particular group’s code of conduct), compliance (adapting one’s behaviour following a request by another person) and obedience (adapting one’s behaviour following a command

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Psychology

  • Catherine A. Sanderson, Saba Safdar(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  If the person who deviates seems to be incompetent (wears thick glasses, complains of being unable to see the lines well, and so on), having anyone else stand up to the majority decreases Conformity. When a group appears unanimous, it’s at its strongest. When someone breaks the unanimity, others feel better able to do so as well. social impact theory – the theory that people we are close to have more impact on us than people who are more distant CHAPTER 8 SOCIAL INFLUENCE 262 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES. Demographic variables, such as age and gender, also influence Conformity (Eagly & Carli, 1981; Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981). Conformity is highest in adolescence, when there is real pressure to fit in, and lower in children and older adults (Berndt, 1979; Brown, Clasen, & Eicher, 1986; Gavin & Furman, 1989). Peer pressure, for example, is identified by adolescents as a major predictor of misconduct (e.g., drug/alcohol use, unprotected sex, and minor delinquent behaviour; Brown et al., 1986). Gender also seems to be relevant in rates of Conformity as the Research Focus on Gender shows. demographic variables – varying characteristics of an individual, sample group, or population. Jack Ziegler/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com RESEARCH FOCUS ON GENDER Is There a Gender Difference on Conformity? Research indicates that there is a gender difference in rates of Conformity. Specifically, women are more likely than men to agree with others in group decision-making tasks, and are less likely than men to dissent from the group. However, the size of these gender differences in Conformity varies across types of situations. First, both men and women are particularly likely to conform in unfamiliar situations (Eagly & Carli, 1981; Eagly, Wood, & Fishbaugh, 1981). For example, women may conform more in conversations about hockey, whereas men may conform more in conversations about child-rearing.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book