Conformity and Obedience - Essay Example

Conformity and Obedience Humans have the propensity to alter their behavior, beliefs, morals and ethicsbased upon real or perceived societal pressures because of the fundamental and universal need for acceptance by social peers. The failure to comply with conventional ‘norms’ of society often results in serious consequences; the most disconcerting is the segregation from and vilification of a desired group. People will go as far as to alter their deepest belief system and innermost values to be accepted by their friends, neighbors, community and those considered to be superiors. A person may often comply when prompted to act in a certain way by another whether or not they believe it is the correct course to take because the outcome of non-compliance may be or lead with undesirable social consequences. Obedience differs from compliance. A person will obey a directive from a person accepted as an authoritative figure because they do not believe that they have a choice whereas complying is more of a choice. In 1951, Solomon Asch demonstrated conformity by demonstrating how people can be routinely influenced by others. In 1961, Stanley Milgram began his experiment which demonstrated the tendency for obedience, an experiment that is still today a subject of much discussion, debate and review. In his study, Asch gathered a small group of people together to compare a line drawn on one piece paper to three lines drawn on another, one of which was obviously the same size as the one on the first paper. He then asked the group to determine which of the three lines matched the one. All but one of the group members was collaborating with Asch unbeknownst to the one actual subject of the test who was always positioned to choose last. The collaborators would choose the wrong line so as to determine if the test subject would give in to social pressure and choose against their own perceptions. 76 percent did just that. However, if just one of the groups chose the obvious correct answer, 18 percent of the test subjects also chose what they knew to be correct as well. This experiment proved that the need to conform to others in society, even strangers, is very strong. Why would people conform in this rather benign situation rather than following their own mind’s eye? “When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar” (Asch, 1951). Milgram conducted what many consider disturbing yet especially revealing experiments regarding obedience. Milgram demonstrated how readily people will intentionally harm one another even though they had no personal or monetary cause to do so. Subjects of the experiment were told that they were participating in a study to determine if punishment affected the way people learn. Three people took part in the experiment. Two were actors, one played the part of the person conducting the experimenter who instructed but did not coerce the subjects to persist if they resisted. The second actor, the ‘learner,’ was asked questions by the test subject and then pretended to be in great pain when answering a question incorrectly. The subject carried out the punishment by engaging a button on a metal box which they were told was a mechanism that controlled voltage and was attached to the ‘learner.’ A switch on the box was labeled with the numbers 15 to 450 representing the amount of voltage in 15 volt increments. A label at the high end of the switch was marked with differing terms such as ‘severe shock.’ The subject asked the ‘learner’ questions and when the wrong answer was given, the subject was instructed to push the button giving the ‘learner’ a shock. In each instance in which a wrong answer was given throughout the test, the voltage was increased by 15 volts. In a situation where the ‘learner,’ positioned behind a wall, complained only twice by knocking on the wall but did not make a sound, the subject went all the way to highest voltage 65 percent of the time including the last increment that read ‘danger severe shock. Milgram demonstrated in these experiments that most people are readily obedient and will go against their own standards of moral behavior. Furthermore, the experiments proved that the conditions do not have to be at all extreme for people are obedient. People will obey even under the most insignificant social circumstances. Only men were used in the experiment but later experiments by Milgram using only women provided similar results. The men were paid ($4.50) which might raises the question that the need of money could have motivated the participants to continue longer than they would have normally. However, the payment alone did not taint the outcomes as the participants were told that they could keep the money whether they finished the experiment or not. They were not reminded of this assurance during the experiment though. In fact, the participants were told not to stop and that they had no choice to continue during this very stressful situation. This is clearly at odds with ethical guidelines. Participants should feel free and also be reminded that they can leave any experiment at any time. A Yale University laboratory was setting which could have intimidated some of the participants. Milgram, aware that this setting could skew the outcome, he repeated it in an unspectacular office building where the findings were comparable but a slightly lower level of obedient behavior was noticed. (Blass, 2004). Blind obedience to perceived authoritative figures is not a characteristic of merely the weak-minded or pathological persons but also of most “average” people when they are placed in a stressful situation such as the Milgram experiment and many others which followed it have shown. This experiment has been reproduced in countries worldwide with somewhat comparable results. It is a human trait to obey others perceived to possess authority and power. There are slight variations between cultures however. In cultures where powerful figures are considered more acceptable than others, the Chinese culture for example, that teaches the government should be served by the people, people are more likely to obey without question. In the Western tradition, though, that of the predominant UK where the opposite is true, the rate of obedience varies accordingly (Hofstede, 1980). If a person is of the majority opinion, they are likely to vocalize their views freely. A lack of criticism or challenge from others acts to strengthen that person’s opinion. However, if a person is not of the majority opinion, they will be concerned about being isolated socially and won’t vocalize their opinion as unreservedly, at least in public. As a result, minority opinions are infrequently shared in a social context and appear to be more of a minority that they actually are. “Social norms of the rejection of and intolerance to different ideas may affect not only the frequency of expression of certain ideas but also their salience among people’s thoughts and attitudes.” (Noelle-Neuman, 1986). Furthermore, the lack of demonstration regarding minority ideologies allows existing social standards to remain largely unchallenged. When individuals are faced with making an important decision, they frequently take the widely held social norms into consideration in addition to the other factors influencing the current situation. When people appraise other’s behaviour or opinions, they measure by their own standard when deciding whether or not to approve of the actions of a person. A person from one culture can hardly interpret the proper standard of obedience for a person from another culture. As an example, in India, a woman usually marries a man she has never met because she is respectfully following her parents’ wishes that she partakes in the pre-arranged marriage. A British woman might view this as an unreasonable act of submission believing the Indian woman was blindly following the order of someone else. The Indian woman, however, may not view it as an order but merely a parental suggestion based upon their love, wisdom and good intentions. German history well illustrates how people can become overtly obedient surprisingly easily. The German volkish movement of the 19th century emphasised nationalism, an ‘all-for-one’ ideology which advocated mass conformity and obedience to the government. After developing for about half a century, volkist ideals had become wide-spread and were strengthened following the loss in World War One. The Nazi party capitalised on this overtly obedient atmosphere. Dissenting opinions were largely unwelcome which perpetuated obedience and the fear of isolation. Conform or be alone were the only choices. “In post-war Germany, 40 percent of students who were age 12 between 1946 and 1953 reported actual participation in school discussions and debates, whereas only 6 percent of the students who were age 12 between 1941 and 1945, during the last period of the Nazi dictatorship, reported participation in discussions” (Almond & Verba, 1965). Social influences dictate fashion fads as well as a person’s political and racial viewpoint. The parameters of behaviour, values and beliefs a group subscribes to can be implied or explicit. Throughout the history of mankind survival has depended on living and working together for the common good. This necessary group mentality includes similar behaviors, values and beliefs thus diminishing the threat of in-group conflict. Humans are conditioned to conform to a group and feel compelled to obey even if the group consists of total strangers. Evidently, the loss of independent thought along with compromised personal beliefs and moral values is less feared than the feeling of isolation. References Almond, G.A. & Verba, S. (1965). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Asch, S.E. (1951). “Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment.” Groups, Leadership and Men. H. Guetzkow (Ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books. Hofstede, Geert. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Read More