Social Psychology of Conformity, Compliance and Obedience - Research Paper Example

Social Psychology of Conformity, Compliance and Obedience of Your Introduction Human beings are such that they get to adopt the norms, values and culture of societies they belong to. We naturally pick up the accepted ways of doing things and this shapes the way we think, behave and live. However, in cases where we need to comply and obey instructions, we are often free to make choices of whether to obey them or disobey them. This is because in most societies, people are free to do what they want and exercise moral judgments. In spite of this freedom, people always tend to yield to pressure from third parties. Many of us will happily wield to pressure from our family members and our superiors. A lot of people will conform with social requirements and obey instructions because we seek social acceptance. Others will also do it because it is the “right” thing to do. And people from different backgrounds continue to adhere to the wishes of others without much thought. There is no clarity about how people actually decide to yield to peoples pressures. It could be various causes or reasons. However, it is clear that obedience and compliance to other peoples wishes is commonplace. In some situations like military set ups, there is the need for people to follow commands and do things which might be against their own conscience. This research will examine the research question “why do people feel obliged to comply with group requests?”. In doing this, the research will seek to find the reasons behind compliance and obedience to group demands and expectations. In doing this, the paper will undertake a thorough evaluation of theories and concepts relating to group interests and conformity, compliance and obedience. Group Influence and Norms “Social interaction among individuals with a preference for conformity gives rise to coordination externalities” (Grajzl and Baniak, 2012 p492). This means that when a group of people decide to live by a given set of standards, that group is able to attain coordination and there is unity of purpose in the group and its activities. This enables the group members to cooperate and attain group results through a unified system of behavior and activities Geert Hofstede states that group norms consolidates into a culture which becomes a software of the mind and enables people to operate and react in certain predictable and consistent patterns in matters and situations (2010). Consistency in the behavior of members in a given group enables the the group to set standards of social homogeneity and this allows behavior conformity to be attained (Grajzl and Baniak, 2012). When a person is committed to a group, that individual is attracted to live by the standards of conformity of the entire group or organization he belongs to (Kiesler,and Corbin, 1965). This is because it is the attraction to conform with the group and its norms enables a person to attain membership and recognition. This commitment lays the foundation for membership of a given group and conformity and obedience becomes the basis and standard for group membership. Obedience and Social Order Where a group builds its norms and they define what is “reasonable”, that standard enables the group to define what is right and what is wrong (Kelman and Hamilton, 1990). This is because when norms evolve and are consolidated in a given group, they become standards and elements for ensuring that members conform to the group and its rules and regulations. Once these are apparent to an individual in a moral dilemma, that individual must choose what is accepted as “right” and “proper” by the group. Once a social system is formed, people who enter the group become subject to the rules, norms and expectations of members. A laboratory research conducted by Chong and Syarifuddin (2010) tested the hypothesis of whether project managers were subjected to the obedience pressures of the team members to do things that are failing or not. The study indicated that there is a consistent and pressure that are placed on the project managers and leaders of organizations. And this pressure is directed at getting a manager or leader to continue with projects that have problematic. This is because group standards form the basis and the blueprints for defining what is right and what is not right. This allows group members to set targets and create standards that they need to observe in order to retain the social order of the group or the social entity. Obedience and disobedience are norms and expectations that groups have for their members. They are standards that members need to obey and adhere to in all circumstances (Passini and Morseilli, 2009). This is because social standards create social order and this provides authorities and authoritative elements in the group. This creates the standards and the elements for determining what is right and what is not right. Due to this, where there are riots or disobedience, there is a major halt in the system and members tend to have a major halt in their activities. Where there is civil disobedience, there is a major break in order and this communicates a strong point to the authorities (Passini and Morseilli, 2009). “Authority is one form of social influence, which serves the purpose of either maintaining group norms (social control) or changing group norm (social change)” (Passini and Moseilli, 2009 p97). This because in most groups and organizations, the collective lives of the people is based on the system of authority. Authority is institutionalized or hierarchicalized to ensure that members always get the group members of the group to go by the norms of the group. This creates a legitimate system of authority and this legitimate authority and system sets the standard for activities. The legitimate system of authority maintains social order and people need to obey this authority to remain conformist and accepted members of the authority. This is because the legitimate authority accepts and rejects members based on their actions and conducts and this leads to the setting of standards for behavior and expectations for members. Social Cognitive Theory Social cognitive theories involve the explanations of how people get to learn ideas and concepts and integrate it into their lives as norms. From this angle, we look at how people internalize the norms of the groups they belong to and make it an essential and important part of their activities and their way of life. In a society where people do immoral things, the social cognitive theory is used to explain why people move from the right path to the wrong course of behavior. This is because for a bad thing to be accepted as good, there is the need for that society to create an environment where that bad thing is accepted and this has the capability of getting people to become comfortable with negative activities and view them as acceptable and normal ways of ding things. One school of thought presented by Beu and Buckley, states that “... according to social cognitive theory, individuals behave immorally by disengaging their self-regulatory mechanism” (2004 p552). This is because in order to become an amoral individual, a person will have to detach himself or herself from what is right and what is universally moral and take on what is inappropriate or not morally right. In providing an explanation for groups and countries like Nazi Germany, Beu and Buckley explained that there is the need for a set of leaders who see things in a negative light to take power and exert influence (2004). They will have to send the people a message that glorifies what is wrong and justify what is negative as being good and acceptable in the period at hand. Through this, most organizations and groups get to be influenced by a “legitimate” authority that acts in a negative way and manner that is contrary to the principles of good faith. And in most cases the structures are presided over by negative and amoral leaders who succeed in presenting bad things as good to the followers and members of the group. The basis for this is the fact that leaders have authority, power and status that enable them to wield social influence over other human beings (Beu and Buckley, 2004). This is because leadership is always sanctioned by some authority and power. And when this happens, there is a strong tendency and a strong power that can be used negatively by a leader who tends to twist what is good and make it look bad. Beu and Buckley (2004) studied some of the major corporate governance scandals like the Enron saga and identified that most leaders have influence over other people. In these scandals, some very competent and trustworthy individuals in organizations like Enron and Worldcom came under the influence of very negative but influential individuals who were at the helm of affairs in these large corporate entities. The process was such that the leaders used their influence to create an atmosphere where the controls and authorities that ensured transparency and morality were sidelined. The process of social cognition involves creating a system that will get people to conform with a given set of practices that are not really acceptable in a given group. Social cognition creates a very strong system that enables people to perceive the external elements of the environment and adjust to suit it. Thus, if the leaders of an entity create a system that has many moral lapses, people tend to adopt that as norms and this leads to major problems that continue to grow and thrive in the organization and members feel obliged to comply by the principles and rules of the group. According to Kassin et al, (2010) social cognition is a very strong tool for the creation of evolutionary psychology. This is because the social cognition and sensitivity shapes the mindset and psychology of people. Majorities exert a major influence on the actions and views of minorities (Stein, 2013). This is because where there is a major and pervasive system where people do things, this leads to the creation of a system where people either have to adapt or leave the group (Stein, 2013). Participants of an organization or a group will tend to tilt towards the views and expectations of the majority of the people in the group (Stein, 2013). Most participants in group affairs feel labeled, tagged and victimized if they come up with a view or activity that is contrary to the popular view. Stein studied the activities of a group of people who had acceptable rules and norms in the group they belong to (Stein, 2013). This shows that the majority of people will have an undue influence and tend to demonize and view people taking a different view as negative and wrong. Many opinions that are contrary to popular views and popular opinions are frowned upon and they are discouraged in a give group. Due to this apparent system and structure, the minority in a group or an organization tend to conform with the majoritys view and opinion (Kassin et al, 2010). Sturman (2011) also identifies that there is an involuntary submission of people who seek to become recognized and accepted as members of a given group or organization. This is because the human mind is such that people the tendency to feel that to be accepted into a group, they will have to shape their mind, thoughts and views to accept a given set of behaviors that is pervasive in the group or the organization. The behavioral aspects of subordination is such that people will need to adjust and modify their views and moods in order to become members of a group (Sturman, 2011). This will help the members to literally fit into the group and integrate and become full fledged members of the group. Conformity and Punishment “The concept of authority has pivotal importance within social sciences, being a fundamental element in the organization of social life” (Passini and Morseilli, 2009 p97). This means that authority is important to ensure that organizations operate and work to attain the fundamental objectives of the group. Thus, authority implies that members of the group will have to work and attain results. Conformity is important and vital to ensure that people work with the leaders to attain the targets of the group (Bussu et al, 2013). Thus, there are conscious attitudes and conscious sanctions and limits that are placed on the activities of members. Hence, where people fail to meet the elements of what is expected of them, they made to go through some kinds of punishment and sanctions that gets them to move in a particular direction. As identified above, social conformity forms a framework and a system for getting members of the group or organization to operate and live in a given direction. In the wider society, conformity is son entrenched in peoples mind that people become distressed and alienated when they do not meet standards or expectations of the wider society. In a study conducted by Bussu et al (2013), it was identified that a sample of suicide cases studied showed a strong correlation between social conformity and the individual view that a person has failed to attain it. Bussu et als study showed that people had expectations and standards of how they have to live and attain results in life. Where a person felt he had failed to live up to those standards and expectations, that individual tends to feel that he must be punished or eliminated from this life. This implies that the concept of punishment is seen as an acceptable method and system that enables people and individuals to stay within the parameters of meeting the groups goals and aspirations. Thus, conformity is seen as a substitute for failure to conform with group norms. Obedience and Psychological Traits Thus, with the recognition of authority and the desire to meet the objectives of groups that individuals belong to, people have built a psychological trait that involves the cognition of concepts and ideas in the wider society and integrating them into their minds which becomes a habit that guides them to conform to group norms. Internalization of social norms plays a significant role in the development of an individual (Vartanian and Hopkinson, 2010). “Conformity appears to be a risk factor for the internalization of societal standards of attraction and could be targeted in efforts to reduce internalization” (Vartanian and Hopkinson, 2010, p87). This means that when people accept the need and the desire to conform with group desires and group expectations, they tend to see things in a way and manner that is in line with the groups expectations. Thus, they tend to obey orders and obey instructions from members of the group in general. Conformity acts as a system of getting people to operate and do things in a way and manner that is consistent with the wider group in general. External group influence is extremely strong on people. Studies by Twenge (2009) showed that this was pervasive in the lives of people who lived in different generations. The study involve a review of several Americans, some of who grew up in the 1960s and another set that grew up in the 21st Century. The findings indicated that those who grew up in the 1960s were militarily oriented and they had traits of soldiers. This is because in that time, there was a general tendency for people to move towards military and other models of life and existence. Those who grew up in the 21st Century were more or less prone to demand their personal and individual rights. This gave way for people to be less conformist as those who grew up in the 1960 where there was conformity. Thus, the general external environment and systems around which a person lives has a profound influence on individuals and their attitudes towards obedience and conformity. The finding showed that elements of the society that are relevant in determining whether a person will conform to rules and instructions in general include the family structures, technology, attitudes, focus on self and norms (Twenge, 2009). These things come together to shape the way people view life and forces people to conform with the dominant and relevant themes in the society. This enhances peoples tendency towards obedience and guidance and direction. Another line of examination is conformity which relates to the expectations and behavior of people (Eagly, 1983). He identified that expectations and influence is a major key in getting people to behave in particular ways and particular directions in life. People are more likely to move in a particular direction when expectations are set for them and manipulates them towards a given direction (Eagly, 1983). The societys view of locus of control is also important because it provides a justification and an identification of how people should accept external pressures (Lavine, 2010). This is because where the locus of control dictates that people are influenced by external factors and external matters, then conformity and obedience is emphasized. However, where people are expected to take independent decisions, there is a tendency for people to stand their grounds and refuse activities where necessary. Also, threats and other external pressures are central in determining peoples actions and inactions in society. A study conducted by Carlsmith et al (1974) showed that where there are punitive threats and direct confrontations of how people will be treated where they fail to do things, people are more likely to obey orders that might not even be in their best interests. Conclusion Acculturation and social order is a fundamental aspect of groups. Where groups come together, they form norms and through this, there is the formation of legitimate authority which runs the group. Based on this, the group creates norms of what is right and what is wrong. Once a group is established, there are conformity rules and norms that are binding on members of the society. Where members fail to live to those rules and regulations, there is a general tendency for people to expect punishment or some kinds of reprisals from the majority of the groups members. Group membership is often dependent on the adherence to group rules and regulations. Obedience to rules and regulations is based on the legitimacy of the groups authority and the existence of clear rules and regulations. Thus, where a person appears to be on the verge of breaking the groups rules and there is a possibility of punishment or sanctions, individuals tend to conform with the rules and instructions of members of the group. References Beu, D. S. and Buckley, M. R. (2004) “This is War: How Politically Astute Achieve Crimes of Obedience through the Use of Rural Disengagement” Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) pp551 – 568 Bussu, A., Detotto, C. and Sterzi, V. (2013) “Social Conformity and Suicide” The Journal of Socio-Economics 42 (2013) 67 – 78 Carlsmith, J. M., Lepper, M. K and Landauer, T. K. (1974) “Childrens Obedience to Adult Requests: Interactive Effects of Anxiety Arousal and Apparent Punitiveness of the Adult” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(6) pp822 – 828 Chong, V. K. and Syarifuddin, I. (2010) “The Effect of Obedience Pressure and Authoritarianism on Managers Prospect Evaluation Decision” Advances in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting 26 (2010) pp185 – 194 Eagly, A. H, (1983) “Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis” American Psychologist 3 September 1983 pp712 - 713 Grajzl, P and Baniak, A. (2012) “Mandating Behavioral Conformity in Social Groups with Conformist Members” Journal of Economic Behavor Organization 82 (2012) pp489 – 493 Hofstede, G. (2010) Culture: The Software of the Mind New York: McGraw Hill. Kassin, S., Fein, S., Markus, (2010) H.R. Social Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning Kelman, H. C. and Hamilton, V. L. (1990) “The Social Psychology of Authority: Why Do People Obey an Order to Harm Others? Crimes of Obedience” Law and Society Review 24(4) pp1089 – 1102 Kiesler, C. A. and Corbin, L. H. (1965) “Commitment, Attraction and Conformity” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1965) Vol 2 (6) pp890 – 895 Lavine, R. A. (2010) “Personality Traits Across Criterias and Research on Obedience” American Psychologist 3 (66) 620 – 625 Passini, S. and Morseilli, D. (2009) “Authority Relationships Between Obedience and Disobedience” New Ideas in Psychology 27 (2009) 96 – 106 Stein, R. (2013) “The Pull of the Group: Conscious Conflict and the Involuntary Tendency Towards Conformity” Conscious and Cognition 22 (2013) pp788 – 794 Sturman, E. D. (2011) “Involuntary Subordination and its Relation to Personality, Mood and Submission Behavior” American Psychological Association 23 (1) pp262 – 276 Twenge, J. M. (2009) “Change War Time in Obedience: The Jurys Still Out, But it Might Be Decreasing” American Psychologist Vol 64(1) pp28 – 31 Vartanian, L. R. and Hopkinson, M. M. (2010) “Social Connectedness, Conformity and Internalization of Societal Standards of Attractiveness” Body Language 7 (2010) pp86 – 89 Read More