Conformity, Obedience, and Group Pressure - Essay Example

?Running head: CONFORMITY, OBEDIENCE AND GROUP PRESSURE Conformity, Obedience and Group Pressure Conformity and obedience are often confused as the same social psychological reactions. When it comes to group pressure as the catalyst for such behavior, identifying these two as distinct from the other becomes even more complex. Defining the two and their influence on the self is a major starting point for successful therapy. Classical and contemporary studies combined are useful in assessing individual behavior and in addressing social psychological dysfunction that may result from a tendency toward each. But while conformity and obedience may be relatively easily defined, their incidences in various situations are not. Conformity and Obedience Defined Conformity generally entails group members changing their minds to suit the attitudes and opinions of the majority. Here we must also include the concept of compliance in understanding the nature of eventual obedience, since compliance is only slightly different from conformity in that in being compliant one must [consciously] adapt his or her actions to another’s wishes or rules. While the former has less to do with personality than choice, the latter requires of its subject a particular personality that allows them to yield. Obedience, on the other hand, requires the acknowledgment of authority and one’s acquiescence to it. Thus a compliant individual may not necessarily or automatically be inclined to conform, although studies have shown “…those that conform tend to be obedient and compliant” (Constable, Schuler, Klaber & Rakauskas 1999, par. 1-2). Solomon Asch: Group Pressure and Conformity Social psychologist Solomon Asch’s early (1951) experiments on group pressure and conformity, and ultimately his conclusions provide an interesting and sometimes disturbing clinical view of how humans pressured by the group perceive themselves in relationship to their environment and others. Much of what Asch concludes through the experiments links directly to psychological disorders prevalent in studies conducted over time. Therapies suggested for such disorders and favored by given psychologists often differ, undoubtedly due to what has been described above as differences in personalities that prompt unreasoning conformity, obedience or disobedience, or both. The conduct of Asch’s study was fairly straightforward. Ache showed students in groups of eight to ten--all of whom except one in each group had been coached beforehand to pick the wrong answer on twelve of the eighteen cards. Each card had a group of three bar lines on the right, and one bar line. Students were asked to pick one bar from a series of three on the right that best matched the one bar on the left. Most subjects were told to deliberately give the wrong answer. Asch arranged the questioning so that most wrong answers would be given before the test subject in the group made his or her decision. The results were significant and according to Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010): “50 and 80 percent…conformed with the false majority estimate…a third…yielded to the majority’s wrong judgments on half or more of the critical trials” (p. 550). The results prompted Asch, according to age-of-the sage.org (n.d) to conclude: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct" (par 7). What this says about our desire not to be different, but to conform with our peers is significant. What it may say in some cases about the role of obedience in this behavior is, according to Berg and Bass (1961) citing Champney (1941), pertinent. The significance of parental attitudes and behavior on the subsequent conformity found in their children…suggested that when parents tend to dominate their children, restraining the children's efforts to solve some of their own problems, demanding obedience before everything else, they are likely to create shy, docile, self-conscious, conforming children, overly sensitive to criticism (p. 76). As one might conclude, an individual given to obeying without careful or logical consideration may likely be strongly inclined toward a tendency to conform. As Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) also indicate, beyond that rather simple point of “wanting to be liked, accepted and approved” (p. 549), other complex psychological elements may be at work. Asch noted that the fewer people who gave wrong answers the fewer test subjects did the same, indicating a strong mistrust element in the views of the few versus those of the majority [the majority, perhaps, being viewed as the obedience deserving authority.] As might be concluded, a decided lack of independence and confidence was clear when it came to one’s rational judgment over the [authoritative] pack. In a Zimbardo study where college students were divided into guards and prisoners, conforming behavior from groups devolved so quickly into blind obedience toward the “guards” in authority that the experiment was stopped. (Constable et al 1999, par. 7). On the positive side, it should be noted that significant change in most aspects of life come from the minority generally considered non-conformers [not necessarily, but many times not particularly “obedient” individuals. As Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) found, “The conflict between entrenched majority view and the dissonant minority perspective is an essential precondition of innovation…” ( p. 551). However, it seems counterintuitive to assume innovators are not appropriately obedient. Thomas Edison, for instance, is not considered a non-conformist or disobedient. However, someone like Facebook creator, Marc Zuckerman, if the film is to be believed, had a strong tendency toward both. Discounting the idea of obedience in Ashe’s findings, it might be assumed in many cases that a matter of lack of self esteem combined with group pressure prompts individuals to go along. Also, what may appear to be a matter of poor self esteem may actually indicate a serious psychological dysfunction. It is likely in the first category that the person who knowingly gives a wrong answer would experience stress in seeing themselves as being pressured into performing dysfunctionally [or in this case, conforming and hating themselves for it.] In achieving the goal of “fitting in” by giving a wrong response they are deluding themselves, not challenging authority, as would be more indicative of the disobedient individual. In this instance, disobedience would be a positive indicator. In exhibiting conforming behavior for whatever reason presents what Zimbardo and Gerrig (2010) predict may be an indication of “a loss of control” (p. 453). Such sensation must produce in the individual frustration that logically could lead to unacceptable behavior such as “disobedience.” Group Influence on Adolescence A good place to study group influence in terms of conformity versus obedience is in the area of adolescent behavior, where conformity often includes both, depending upon who or what group has particular influence over the individual at a given time. “In short, it appears clear that the heritage of parent-child relationships [which normally include obedience] that the young person carries into adolescence will affect the relative ease with which he adjusts [conforms] to the changed roles and new demands of this period…” (Kagan & Coles 1972, p. 216). A child which may have obediently followed the rules of parents, when confronted with the normal pressures of peer influence may very well choose to conform to the peer group consistent as changes in attitudes and social expectations arise in adolescence. An example of this is probably best reflected in well publicized stories and studies of adolescents who commit unacceptable acts with member of their peer groups to the dismay of parents who insist they were the perfectly behaved child before adolescence. It is the “not my child” statement so often heard in these situations. What has happened is a transition from both obedience to authority and conformity to parental expectations to pressure from the group to conform and be accepted. Such a psychological need has been well documented by many psychological studies. In assessments of and to what degree this occurs is always ameliorated by the individual’s self image and “varies enormously from one adolescent to another…” (Kagan et al, 1972, p. 222). For these individuals obedience is practiced when appropriate to authority and conformity to group influence and pressure is seen as, in a sense, beneath them--perhaps even a challenge to their self image. Probably one of the clearest examples of this behavior is the incidents of under aged drinking. A teen [14] whom we shall call Dan goes to a gathering at a friend’s house and finds the parents not at home. The situation is one he’s been told by his parents to avoid. He thinks of leaving, but pressure from his peers convinces him to not only stay, but also partake in drinking at the urging of older teens. Dan is the product of a recent family breakup and has come as a new student to the school. He is determined to be accepted. He lives with his grandparents, whom he does not see as strong authority figures and is therefore less inclined to “obey.” His self image, as well, has been damaged by the fact that his father has abandoned the family and left them without resources. This scenario is played out over and over again in society, and the potential for assessing Dan’s behavior in terms of conformity are obvious. Here he is confronted not only by older teens, which he may confuse with authority figures to be obeyed, but also his need to bolster his image with his new friends by conforming to their expectations. He may even fear reprisal from the older teens, his obedience to their pressure then is less choice than self-preserving reaction. Deviance from Dominant Group Norms Deviance from prominent group norms comes with a price, as does conformity to the individual. The degree of conformity largely depends upon the price the individual is willing to pay versus his or her perception of its importance to their personal and social existence. Korte in his (1972) study of social life at Vassar examined its apparently liberal majority and its influence on the less liberal minority as a matter of perception, particularly when it came to personal deviance. Terry & Hogg (2000) contend that in this instance the minority are proud to be non-conforming and indeed derive from it their self-esteem. There is really no deviance involved in their position. Real conformity can be judged only by the outward willingness of a vocal minority to dispute their own image. This seems counterintuitive—as convoluted as the notions of conformity, obedience and deviance themselves. As in many instances, what appears to be overt conformity to group pressure may actually be a substantial willingness to challenge the group identity in the interests of preserving self-- its image and opinions. Conclusion While the topic of obedience and conformity in relationship to group influence may seem rather straightforward in some instances as evidenced in studies, the power of the group to influence such behavior may be overstated. As Berg et al (1961) found, “conformity may or may not be combined with blind obedience to another person’s demands” (p. 433). It is also a mistake to see conformity in terms of society as a bad thing, since without it society and its influence on the individual could not function. We do not always agree with laws, but society would be hard pressed to maintain itself without our obedience to legal authority. Conversely, in the words of C.P. Snow, “…more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.” What role obedience played in the Nazi movement versus a desire for conformity is unknown. Logic and studies on the topic would indicate both were present, promoted by a strict unwavering dedication to authority combined with a desire to part of a group—either for personal identity reasons or for the sake of self preservation. References Berg, I.A. & Bass, B.M. (1961) Conformity and deviation. New York: Harper & Brothers. Constable, S., Schuler, Z. Klaber, L & Rakauskas, M. (1999). Conformity, compliance and obedience. Original tutorial produced at Miami University. Retrieved from: http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/cults/cco.shtml (Accessed 17 May 2011). Kagan, J. & Coles, R. (1972) Twelve to sixteen: Early adolescence. New York: W. W. Norton. Terry, D.J. and Hogg, M.A. (2000) Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zimbardo, P & Gerrig, R.J. (2010). Psychology and life, (19th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Read More