Why do we Conform and why do We Obey - Assignment Example

?WHY DO WE CONFORM AND WHY DO WE OBEY? by Presented to of the of the of of the City and State] January 18, 2012 The maintenance of any stable social order is scarcely possible without the integration of individuals into the established society. Consequently, mechanisms of furthering social consensus become increasingly important, and the attainment of the consent of the governed is an instrumental part of satisfying this aim. Therefore it is necessary to analyze the forms of creation of such consent, which most frequently take the form of manufacturing conformity and obedience. The definition of conformity and obedience themselves is highly problematic. Burr (2002) suggests that conformity may be the auto-kinetic effect of modification of one’s personality in the direction of the social rules (or norms) prevailing within the group an individual belongs to (2002, p.35). The mechanism of conformity is thus construed as inherent in human beings who, as social animals, are assumed to be naturally inclined toward following certain group behavioral modes. On the other hand, the numerous results of empirical research in the field of conformity suggest that the impact of peer pressure, which is obviously of social, rather than biological nature, has its own effect upon the degree of susceptibility of individuals to the conformity rules of his or her society. For instance, Nicholson’s et al. (1985) research data indicated that the North American and British students have rather low levels of conformity, while the study by Perrin & Spencer (1981) showed almost complete absence of conformity characteristics among North American engineering and math students. Therefore, it is evident that the different levels of peer pressure inside the group produces different levels of conformity with prevalent social norms. Thus, the students that needed higher level of independence of thought for pursuing their studies were much less inclined to uncritically follow other social norms as well. Finally, the definition of obedience is predicated upon the assumption that, unlike in mere conformity, individuals directly follow orders and instructions of the others (Weiten, 2009, p.540). While Milgram (1963) initially posited that obedience may be a part of “deeply ingrained personal tendency” (1963, p.93), supposedly inherent in national character of some peoples (for instance, Germans), the results of the “Milgram’s experiment” demonstrated that there was no direct correlations between a psychological type and the propensity to unquestioningly follow the experiment’s terms. That is why it is misleading to assume that obedience is the result of some individual factors; in fact, it is highly conditioned by the prevailing social norms. Having established the direct causal links between conformity and obedience, on the one hand, and the group influences and social stereotypes, on the other, it is necessary to dwell on the convergence between the former reactions and social norms. The definition of social norms is rather complicated one, due to multifaceted character of the latter. However, in the most general sense it may be claimed that social norms encompass all social constructs that help describe and categorize human behavior, thus playing the role of specific control mechanisms (Gialdini and Trost, 1998, p.131). According to Goldberg (1954), the conformity with prevailing social norms is triggered even in the case of fleeting exposure to the group norms. The conceptualization of group norms actually proceed in several forms, following either the patterns of habitual customs (Sumner, 1906), the joint negotiation (either formal or informal) on the conduct most beneficiary for the group in question (Sherif, 1936), or simply most prominent social behavior characteristics of sociocultural units to which the individuals under consideration belong (Pepitone, 1976). While social norms are often highly alterable, they are nevertheless imperative to the individuals following them. Thus the conformance that results from such norms is highly feasible in conduct of the majority of society’s members. The effect of the determined social roles has its own impact on the formation of conformity responses. The role models that define the group behavior have a direct bearing upon the individuals’ conduct, as supported by Zurcher’s (1983) findings. The following of social roles conditions the exact responses of individuals to the external stimuli, as the fulfillment of pre-assigned social roles creates the situation of conformity with the societal conventions. Likewise, the obedience to dictates of the higher social institutions and individuals representing them is a direct consequence of the conformist pre-disposition of the society with highly diverse social roles. Therefore the belonging to distinct social groups with their differing norms and roles plays an important role in cementing the situation under which the conformity with collective values and obedience to the leading individuals’ instruction are reproduced within a given society. Proceeding to major theories on conformity and obedience, it is necessary to deal with the ideas of Stanley Milgram, one of the most famous behavioral scientists of all times. In the course of a series of experiments, conducted from 1960 to 1974, Milgram established that an unsuspecting laboratory subject, playing a role of a “teacher”, was far more likely to follow the experimenter’s tips even while supposedly administering painful impact upon the participant of the experiment playing the role of a “learner”. The results of the experiment shocked Milgram himself, as 65% of experiments’ subjects were ready and willing to go to the very end of the experiment’s pain spectrum, because of the authoritative suggestions on the part of the experimenter. Milgram’s experiment clearly showed that the majority of selected experiment subjects were rather ready to follow the orders of their superiors, even if such orders would be contrary to the ethical principles they may have adhered to. Milgram’s studies convincingly demonstrated that the impact of authority figures on the behavior of other individuals is far greater than it may have been expected before. The previous ideas on the possible correlation between individual psychological abnormalities and the tendency towards blind obedience were decisively dispelled. The methodology used by Milgram, although disputed and criticized by some other researchers (e.g. Baumrind, 1964), played an important role in developing further guidelines for subsequent human-subject experiments in psychology. With respect to recent research in obedience studies, it should be mentioned that a wide variety of studies were conducted in the period of the late 1990s to 2000s. The majority thereof may be divided into several categories. First of all, the interest of some researchers was drawn to the problem of impact of psychological affects upon the propensity to compliance. Here one should mention the affect infusion model (AIM), developed, among others, by Forgas (1995). Forgas asserts that an affective state of an individual is often integrated into the process of determination of his/her response towards the situations which require the elaboration of independent individual position. Therefore, the response of a subject towards any given request is dependent both on the available stimulus information and the activated knowledge structures that might influence his/her general behavior. Another approach representative of such tendency is that of researching the influence strategies. In this respect, two main directions of research emerged: that of that’s-not-all technique and that of disrupt-then-reframe (DTR) tactic. The former refers to the influence strategies based on presenting the initial request while proffering some additional concessions to the target thereof. Such researchers as Burger (1986) viewed the successful impact of such strategy as the result of the successful search for anchor points that may influence the individual’s responses. The DTR technique’s researchers, on the other hand, focus mainly on analyzing the individual’s resistance towards external influences. For instance, Knowles & Linn (2003) draw a wedge between the psychological forces driving individuals towards compliance (alpha forces) and the ones turning them away from following the others’ orders (omega forces). The complex interaction between these two kinds of psychological impulses is viewed as determining the individuals’ reaction to any given request. Finally, the issues of ethical nature should be reviewed. The critics of Milgram’s approach repeatedly claimed that the human-subject studies of the form conducted by him had been unethical due to the creation of the situation of deception, as the experiment’s subject was unaware of the real nature of his target’s responses. In addition to deception, the apparent distress caused by the experiment’s high intensity was cited as violating medical ethics. Milgram (1964) responded to these accusations by pointing out that the supposed distress had not been anticipated, but the majority of the experiments’ subjects (84%) reported their satisfaction with the experiment’s results. Nonetheless, the importance of ethical guidelines in human-subject social studies is undisputed. The optimum correlation between the experimental realism of Milgram’s type and the requirements of modern medical ethics has not yet been found. Still, as Burger’s (2009) partial replication of Milgram’s experiment showed, it is possible to conduct such extreme impact studies, while conforming to the demands of modern ethical ideas. References Baumrind, D (1964). Some thoughts on the ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of Obedience”. American Psychologist, 19(1), pp. 421-423. Burger, J.M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), pp.277-283. Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), p.1-11. Burr, V. (2002). The person in social psychology. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, pp.39-66. Gialdini, R.B., & Trost, M.R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T., et al. The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Goldberg, S.C (1954). Three situational determinants of conformity to social norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(3), pp.325-329. Knowles, E.S., & Linn, J.A. (2003). Approach-avoid model of persuasion: Alpha and omega strategies for change. In: Knowles, E.S., & Linn, J.A. Resistance and persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(1), pp.371-378. Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the studies of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, pp.848-852. Nicholson, N., Cole, S.G., & Rocklin, T. (1985). Conformity in the Asch situation: A comparison between contemporary British and U.S. university students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), pp.59-63. Pepitone, A. (1976). Toward a normative and comparative biocultural social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), pp.641-653. Perrin, S., & Spencer, C.P. (1981). Independence of conformity in the Asch experiment as a reflection of cultural and situational factors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3), pp. 205-209. Sherif, Muzafer (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper. Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn. Weiten, W. (2009). Psychology: Themes and variations. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Zurcher, L.A. (1983). Social roles: Conformity, conflict, and creativity. Beverly Hills: SAGE. Read More