Why people often yield to societal pressure: reference to social psychological research on conformity - Essay Example

?Why People Often Yield To Societal Pressure: Reference to Social Psychological Research on Conformity Introduction Different people form their own perceptions of various things and actions around them and this forms the basis of how they respond to them. For example, their way of dressing, perception of personal appearance, response to experiments, how they treat others, lifestyle, political opinions, among others. However, there are times in which people act not out of their own principles or judgment of situations but as a result of social influences. Instances of prejudices, mindless violence and other unattractive public reactions are evidences that group pressure shapes the judgments, beliefs and practices of its members. Evidently, people become passive recipients and conformers to the knowledge of others whenever they are placed in a group setting. This paper seeks to explain the reasons as to why people conform to societal pressure. Reasons In the presence of other people, people, regardless of their age, social class, situation or background tend to conform to perceived pressure from others (Bond and Smith 1996). According to Brown (1999), there is no specific or universal way in which individual people respond to group pressure whenever there is a difference between their personal perceptions and perceptions of other group members. This means that although they are always willing and prepared to change their beliefs to conform to that of the majority, people always do so out of some motivations known to them. There are several reasons for which people yield to societal pressure. This can be understood better by conducting social, psychological research on conformity. Crutchfield (1955) defines conformity as yielding to group pressures, also known as majority influence. This term, therefore, denotes an agreement to the position taken by the majority as a result of the desire to look normal, to be liked, to be correct/informational, to fit in or simply to conform to the social identification alongside other societal members. According to McLeod (2007), conformity can also be defined as a type of social influence that involves the transformation or change of behaviour or belief in order to fit in with a group. From these definitions, one of the reasons why people yield to societal pressures is the need to fit it and to look like the rest. A good example of this is how women and girls influence each other’s eating habits. Evidently, many women want to attain and maintain size 10, the body size considered by many women and men to be the ideal body size. A good picture of this can be obtained by observing college students. When reporting for their first year, first semester, many of them are less concerned or critical of their body size, whether too big or too small. However, their perceptions of themselves begin to take a new turn as they make friends, associate and talk about their physical appearances. By the next semester, these ladies, specifically those who are huge, will be indulging in all manner of activities like excessive dieting, taking laxatives, vomiting and exercise in order to get slim and attain the ‘ideal’ size 10 body. This clearly indicates that the perception of size 10 as the ideal body size in campus makes those ladies who remain huge to feel incomplete, ugly, unattractive and so not fitting in the company of campus ladies and campus male friends. They will, therefore, yield unwillingly to the need to slim themselves. The same applies to ladies outside campus, especially the working class. Another factor that makes people yield to social pressure is the need to be informational, a situation known as informational conformity. Crutchfield (1955) explains that this type of conformity results when a person is caught up in an uncomfortable situation making them look up to others, mainly members of their society for guidance. This comes about because the person wants to do the right things or react appropriately, but they lack adequate or appropriate information. Observing others or inquiring from them provides this information but also leads to the adoption of group/societal norms. In this type of conformity, a person accepts the views of the society or group and then they adopt them as individuals (Aumann 1976). Evidence of this type of conformity was shown in Sherif’s autokinetic experiment of 1935. This experiment aimed at revealing the nature of distortions that people experience when they are in the presence of other people, and especially when they are put in an unclear or ambiguous situation. This particular experiment employed the autokinetic effect, a form of perception illusion in which a small spot light which appeared to move but was actually stationary was allowed to shine in a dark room. The participants were then separated and asked to estimate how far the light moved. Responses from individual participants ranged from 20-80 cm (Sherif 1936). The participants were then grouped but in a calculative way. Two people whose results were almost similar were grouped together with one person whose result was very different. The group result converged to a common estimate and most importantly, the person whose result was too different conformed to the opinions of the other two (Sherif 1936). This means that estimates made in a group influenced those made by individual persons. This experiment also reflects a type of conformity called internalization. Montague and Lohrenz (2007) explain that, in this type of conformity, people publicly change their behavior to fit the group standards, and also agree to them privately, whether they be good or bad Other reasons for yielding to societal pressure can be derived from Asch’s line experiment, another example of a classic experiment on conformity. In the 1950s, Solomon Asch, a social psychologist, conducted a famous experiment that explained the fragility of an individual in a mass society when the individual is confronted with contrasting views or opinions of a majority. This experiment also highlighted the tendency to conform to the views or opinions of the majority even if it requires going against one’s own basic perceptions (Asch 1955). In this experiment, a comparison line was presented to the subjects and sets of two or three lines were also presented. They were then asked to compare these sets of lines and state which of them was similar to the reference line. The subjects were to call out their choices. On the first two trials, the subjects mentioned the correct lines, but on the next and subsequent trials, seven of them called out on the wrong choice. From the overall results, 5% of the subjects were found to conform to wrong line estimates for all trials, 33% conformed to wrong estimates on 50% or more of the trials while 25% did not conform to any choice on any trial. From the experiment, discomfort and disbelief can be identified as some of the reasons why people yield to social pressures. Asch realised that throughout the experiments, native subjects portrayed discomfort and disbelief and during some interview sessions conducted, they confessed not having wanted to be different. They believed that other people in the group had a clearer view of the lines, and so they shifted their views to conform to those of others (Asch 1951). It, therefore, became clear that their conformity was a result of the need for social acceptance and approval. Asch’s line experiment evidenced two types of conformities namely normative conformity and compliance. Normative conformity as a form of social conformity is one in which a person yields to group pressure so as to fit into the group. Hayes (2000) points out that this conformity also comes as a result of the fear of rejection by group members, which leads to compliance. In compliance people publicly change their behaviour to fit into given group or a society but privately, they disagree. This means they conform to the opinions of the majority outwardly although inwardly, they reject them. Felps, et al. (2006) observe that this explains norm violence in societies or among groups of people. Another reason for yielding to societal pressure is the desire to gain social rewards, which leads to a type of conformity called ingtratiational conformity. In this type of conformity, a person conforms to the ideas or opinions of others so as to gain favour, to impress them or gain their acceptance. Although it may seem to be similar to normative conformity, this type of conformity is normally motivated by the desire for social rewards instead of the threat for rejection. This means that group pressure has lesser role in generating the decision to conform. An example of this is seeking to please the members of a society so as to be loved, or to get a certain social, political or religious position. A good example of the above is what Lees (1998) describes. According to Lees, women have come to conform to particular understandings of feminity through a collection of social practices and linguistics subscribed to by both gender. A good example of this is social reputation. The society has come to control activities and social reputations of women through the use of particular languages like slag, bitch or slut, or actions like isolation. Because no girl or woman wants to be isolated or referred to by such names, they force themselves to submit involuntarily to such biased gender relations or behaviours. These things make women and girls be branded bad, although such perceptions have no rational basis. Examples of these are irrational conclusions stating that nice girls do not talk much about sex, nice girls do not carry condoms, nice girls do not do it on the first date, and nice girls do not have too much of a sexual history. Because of such prejudices and conclusions, girls are forced to be silent of their sexual history and stop carrying condoms in their bags to give the impressions that they are nice girls. However, this is just but a strategy for wanting to gain acceptance and approval by men and society as well as dealing with fear of rejection that could result from giving a long sexual history and being found with a condom. Someone could think that they go sleeping around with men and could have all types of STDs yet in sense, it was just a way of guarding themselves even in the current light of HIV/AIDs. However, this happens at the risk of being infected with sexuality transmitted diseases and, therefore, social pressure breeds pretenders. The understanding of social behavior provided by the classical experiments conducted by Asch and Sherif and all the examples mentioned in this discussion indicate that obedience and conformity are based on a certain formula regarding to where the behaviors of people originate. The formula is; Behavior = the sum of individual + the situation In this case, behavior represents the outcome or visible response of the individual to a particular situation. An individual is described as being self-contained, having the ability to exist independent of external circumstances and social contexts. The sum of the individual, therefore, refers to the internal and stable states possessed by the person like cognitions, attitudes, personalities among others. Situation simply refers to situational influences existing in the real world and surrounding the individual. Conclusion There are many times when individuals have been caught up with situations that force them to step out of their own perceptions and understanding of situations having to adopt the available popular opinion even when it defies their own stands. This means that they have yielded to group or societal pressure. Many socio-psychological studies on social pressure have been conducted and all of them agree to the fact that the act of yielding to societal pressure is mainly an act of conformity. These studies have also revealed that this conformity is simply the need to identify with the majority and arises out of some motivations namely the desire to look normal, to be liked, to be correct/informational, to fit into the given society or have a social identity. All these can be described as ways of dealing with the threat of rejection, disbelief, lack of confidence and being different and, they can be summarised under four types of conformities called normative conformity, informational conformity, compliance and internalisation. Although not popular, some people yield to societal pressure as a means of gaining social rewards in the form of favour or ability to impress. This called ingratiational conformity. References Asch, S. (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure” Scientific American. (193) pp 31-35. Asch, S. (1951). “Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Carnegie Press. Pittsburg, PA. Aumann, R. (1976). "Agreeing to Disagree". The Annals of Statistics (6) pp 1236-1239. Bond, R. and Smith, P. (1996.) “Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch's ( 1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task”. Psychological Bulletin. (119) pp 111-137. Brown, H. (1999). “Themes in experimental research on groups from 1930s to the 1990s” in M. Wetherell (ed.), identities, groups and social issues. The Open University. London. Crutchfield, R. (1955). Conformity and Character.  American Psychologist. (10) pp 191-198. Felps, W. et al. (2006). Staw, Barry M. ed. "How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel: Negative Group Members and Dysfunctional Groups". Research in Organizational Behavior (27) pp 175–222. Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of psychology. (3rd Ed). London. Thomson. Lees, S. (1998). “The Policing of Girls in Everyday Life: Sexual Reputation and Social Control of Girls” in S. Lees, Ruling Passions: Sexual Violence Reputation and the Law. The Open University press. Milton Keynes. McLeod, S. (2007). “Conformity”. Online: http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html. Accessed on 29th February, 2012. Montague, R. and Lohrenz, T. (2007). "To Detect and Correct: Norm Violations and Their Enforcement". Neuron (1) pp 14–8. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper. New York. Read More