Essay About Conformity Issue

Conformity is a type of social influence that entails a change in behavior or thought in order to fit in with a specific group (Stein, 2017). Typically, such a shift occurs in response to perceived or genuine group pressure (Stein, 2017). Conformity is also defined as the process or act of aligning one’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors with diverse social norms (Sasaki, 2010). The phrase conformity is commonly used to describe agreement with the majority’s position, which is motivated by either the desire to be correct, the want to fit in, or just the desire to conform to social norms (Sasaki, 2010). The people’s conformity tendency can take place is small groups or the whole society and can result from overt and direct social pressure or indirect unconscious influences (Hodges, 2014). Conformity can also take place when a person is alone or in the presence of others (Hodges, 2014). This paper explores conformity, with the focus on various conformity experiments, types, social responses to conformity, as well as minority influence as an aspect of conformity.

Conformity Experiments

The Sherif’s Experiment of 1935

Sherif’s experiment aimed at demonstrating that individuals can conform to group beliefs and norms when subjected to ambiguous situations (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). In Sherif’s experiment, he employed the use of the autokinetic effect, in which a small light spot projected in a dark room appears to move, despite being still (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). He discovered that the participants’ individual test estimates regarding the light’s movement varied considerably from 20 to 80 centimeters (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). Sherif then tested the participants in groups of three. However, he manipulated the groups’ compositions by grouping two participants whose first individual estimates were very similar to an individual whose first estimate was significantly different (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). After several trials of the light’s movement, the participant whose estimate was significantly different from other group members agreed with the views of the two members. Sherif, therefore, concluded that individuals will always conform to or agree with the majority’s view rather than make personal judgments, especially in ambiguous situations (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). According to Sherif, people always want to do the right things in ambiguous situations and will look to others for appropriate information and guidance. By observing others, individuals acquire the correct information, also referred to as informational conformity (McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016).

The Asch’s Experiment of 1951

Solomon Asch’s experiment got influenced by the belief that Sherif’s test had a problem relating to the lack of correct answer or response to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). Asch, therefore, came up with what is today referred to in social psychology as a classical experiment, which gives an obvious answer to a line judgment activity or task (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). According to Asch, the participants’ provision of incorrect or inaccurate answer would be as a result of group pressure (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). Asch’s experiment therefore aimed at investigating the degree to which social pressure resulting from a majority group could influence or affect an individual’s tendency to conform (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). When the participants in Asch experiment got interviewed after the experiment, a majority of them responded that they did not believe their answers for conformity, but agreed with the group for fear of getting ridiculed or perceived as peculiar (Hodges, 2014; Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). Only a few of the participants expressed their belief in the correctness of the group’s answers. Asch, therefore, concluded that people tend to conform for two primary reasons. The first is the desire, or need to fit in the group also referred to as a normative influence. The second reason is the belief that a given group is more informed, and is considered as an informational influence (Hodges, 2014; Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011).

Types of Conformity

Herbert Kelman, Harvard psychologist, identified three primary conformity types, which include compliance, identification, and internalization (Bernheim & Exley, 2015; Myers & Twenge, 2017). Compliance relates to people’s public conformity while maintaining their original beliefs (Bernheim & Exley, 2015; Myers & Twenge, 2017). Identification relates to conforming to famous or respected individuals, usually influenced by the attractiveness of the source (Bernheim & Exley, 2015; Myers & Twenge, 2017). Internalization relates to accepting the behavior or belief of a credible source and conforming both privately and publicly (Bernheim & Exley, 2015; Myers & Twenge, 2017). Although Herbert Kelman’s classification has gained great influence, social psychology research focuses primarily on two conformity types, which include informational conformity (informational social influence) and normative conformity (Normative social influence) (Myers & Twenge, 2017; Stein, 2017).

Informational Conformity

Informational conformity, or informational social influence, takes place when individuals turn to their group members to acquire and accept the right information regarding reality (Hodges, 2014; Stein, 2017). People are highly likely to use informational conformity during ambiguous, panic, crisis, and uncertainty situations (Hodges, 2014; Stein, 2017). Looking to others can assist in easing fears, although they are not always correct. Highly knowledgeable individuals are often considered valuable resources, and that is why people usually consult experts for assistance. However, individuals have to be careful since experts can also make mistakes. Informational conformity often leads to private acceptance or internalization, if an individual genuinely believes that the acquired information is correct (Stein, 2017).

Normative Conformity

Normative conformity, or normative social influence, takes place when an individual conforms to be accepted by the group members (Sasaki, 2010; Panagopoulos & Van der Linden, 2016). Such a need for social approval and acceptance forms part of human behavior, and people are often less accepted, or even punished if they fail to conform with their groups (Sasaki, 2010). Normative social influence often leads to public compliance, saying or doing things without believing in them. Besides, normative social influence has three components, which include the number of individuals in a group, the strength of a group, and immediacy (Sasaki, 2010; McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). The number of individuals in a given team creates a surprising effect because the impact of each group member reduces with increase in the number of group members (Sasaki, 2010; McCurdy, Shandy, & Spradley, 2016). The strength of a group relates to the importance of the team to an individual, and social influence is high in valued groups. Immediacy refers to the group’s closeness during influence, in the context of space and time (Sasaki, 2010; Panagopoulos & Van der Linden, 2016).

Social Responses to Conformity

After submission to group pressures, people may find themselves facing various conformity responses, which vary between public and private agreements (Bernheim & Exley, 2015). When people see themselves publicly agreeing with the decision of groups but privately disagree with the same decisions, they are said to experience acquiescence or compliance. However, when they accept the group’s decision both publicly and privately, then they are considered to experience conversion or private acceptance (Bernheim & Exley, 2015). Convergence is another type of social response to conformity, and it does not involve conforming with the group’s majority. Nonconformity can also occur in different forms, with individuals who do not conform to the group’s majority considered to display independence, the unwillingness to bow to group pressures. Nonconformists may also present counter-conformity or anti-conformity, taking opinions that are contrary to the group’s beliefs (Hodges, 2014).

Minority influence

Although conformity, in general, makes people act and think like groups, people can sometimes reverse such a tendency by changing individuals around them; a practice referred to as minority influence (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). It usually occurs when individuals can make consistent and clear arguments for their opinions. However, the chance of influence is often small if the minority exhibits uncertainly or fluctuates (Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011). A minority that presents a convincing case increases the likelihood of changing the majority’s behaviors and beliefs (Stein, 2017). Minority influence may also occur in a different form that overrides the conformity effects, thereby creating unhealthy group dynamics such as reduced performance and conflicts in work groups (Stein, 2017; Tayler & Bloomfield, 2011).

Conclusion

Conformity forms an essential component of every culture and basic understanding that can bring people together. Strong cultures often emerge from societies whose citizens have high levels of conformity, which brings stability and power. Besides conformity promotes interaction among individuals with shared beliefs and behaviors. However, not every individual can conform to social pressure. Some people choose to remain independent of various groups due to a broad range of factors, including cultural differences.

References

Bernheim, B., & Exley, C. (2015). Understanding Conformity: An Experimental Investigation. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2703932

Hodges, B. (2014). Rethinking conformity and imitation: divergence, convergence, and social understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00726

McCurdy, D., Shandy, D., & Spradley, J. (2016). Conformity and conflict. Boston: Pearson.

Myers, D., & Twenge, J. (2017). Social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Panagopoulos, C., & van der Linden, S. (2016). Conformity to implicit social pressure: the role of political identity. Social Influence, 11(3), 177-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1216009

Sasaki, S. (2010). Conformity or Non-Conformity? Observational Learning and Social Preference. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1725690

Stein, R. (2017). “Trumping” conformity: Urges towards conformity to ingroups and nonconformity to morally opposed outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 34-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.007

TAYLER, W., & BLOOMFIELD, R. (2011). Norms, Conformity, and Controls. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(3), 753-790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679x.2011.00398.x