The Concepts of Compliance, Obedience and Conformity - Coursework Example

COMPLIANCE, CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE Compliance, Conformity and Obedience Insert Name Course Institution Instructor Date Abstract Social groups are based on individual relations that allow the relevant individuals to interact and share beliefs and values. However, the various group members have different behaviours shaped by their personal backgrounds. In order to associate themselves with a particular group, the individuals have to adopt similar behaviours which will distinctively characterise their group. As a result, sociologists have identified conformity, compliance and obedience as the three main elements that directly influence an individual’s behaviour to match that required by the other group members. Therefore, social groups comprise of individuals that exhibits mannerisms that are specified by the group’s codes of behaviour. Conformity, compliance and obedience are meant to set a behavioural standard among the group members where by those that do not meet the standards are cast out of the group. Introduction Behavioural scientists have identified compliance, conformity and obedience as three important elements involved to regulate group behaviour. These elements have varying underlying concepts that determine their ability to influence individual behaviour. All three concepts involve the change in behaviour but the source of behavioural change differs among them. Behaviour can be influenced so as to adopt a behaviour that is widely accepted in the society. This paper aims studying the similarities and differences in the underlying concepts of conformity, obedience and compliance using relevant theories. Conformity involves the change in the beliefs and attitudes of group members to enhance harmony within the group (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008). This brings consistency within the group in terms of their actions and behaviours that distinctively separates them from other groups. It should be noted that, the behaviours of the group members are influenced by the behaviours of other group members which leads to the setting of group standards. Therefore, for the concept of conformity to be fully adopted within a group, the group members have to identify a leader who will be able to influence their behaviour. The conformity process may involve acts of coercion which will force unwilling members to change their behaviours to match those of their group members. If the members still do not adopt the group leader’s behaviours, they face rejection and are not considered part of the group. Conscious and subconscious body processes can be used as an influence of both positive and negative individual habits. Conformity is subjected to a number of factors such as status, public opinion and commitment which eventually determines the conformity levels among group members (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005). In 1958, Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of conformity which are compliance, identification and internalization (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Compliance involves adopting widely accepted behaviours while holding on to the individual beliefs. Identification involves the entire adoption of one’s behaviour and forsaking the individual beliefs. Lastly, internalization involves accepting behavioural influence both privately and publicly. Psychological researchers later narrowed down their research on two of the Kelman varieties namely compliance and internalization. However, this time they referred to them as normative and informational conformity (Taylor, Pellau & Sears, 2006). Informational influence refers to the reference made by an individual to a group member in order to seek accurate information. This influence is likely to arise in three situations where the individual faces an unknown situation, a crisis or requires professional advice. When facing an uncertain situation, the individual is often confused and they refer to their peers to assist them in making the right decisions. During a crisis, it is important to take action immediately and people depend on their group members to ease the panic. People will often turn to experts for advice in matters they are unable to handle or seem confusing to them. Informational influence was documented from Muzafer Sherif’s experiment referred to as the Auto kinetic experiment. From this experiment, Sherif concluded that individual often have different opinions but these opinions smoothen after a period of time and tend to converge to a single opinion (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008). Similarly, group behaviours differ initially but eventually tend to adopt a single behaviour that group members conform to. Normative influence on the other hand occurs when an individual changes their behaviours in order to be included in a group. These individuals aim at being liked by members of a particular group and included to avoid being embarrassed or ridiculed. An example of normative influence is the smoking behaviour among teens. Teens often tease and challenge their peers when they avoid smoking making them feel less important in the group. To maintain their resourcefulness in the group, these teens engage in smoking acts just to conform to the group’s behaviour. Asch’s study revealed the existence of normative influence among individuals by asking them to compare the length of a line with three other comparison lines. The participants were grouped together and as a result most of them agreed on a common answer which was incorrect. Conformity can be influenced by factors such as gender, changes over time, personality, different cultural backgrounds and intelligence. Psychological reveal that students are less bound to conform due to their higher educational levels that call for independent thinking and inquiry (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005). The concept of compliance is very similar to that of conformity but differs in the aspect that an individual does not fully relinquish their behaviours but rather adapt their behaviours to match those of another individual. This is unlike conformity where an individual yields immense power to influence another person’s behaviour and abandoning their own distinct behaviours. Conformity employs coercion, teasing and ridicule to force an individual into accepting a particular behaviour. This is unlike compliance which is gained through persuasion and inspiration. Although to an extent it can be argued that it involves some elements of coercion since the other person is not asked whether they agree or disagree to perform a particular task. However, this degree of coercion is much lower than that involved in conformity. The person requesting for the performance of the task is not asking the individual to change their behaviours or beliefs but rather wants the task to be performed. This fact distinguishes compliance from conformity since conformity requires an individual to totally change their behaviours, beliefs and attitudes (Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett, 2006). Individuals within a group may be required to comply with the several rules and regulations which unite the group. Individual members who opt not to comply lose their significance within the group and are considered a non-member. An example of an organization that requires compliance is the military organizations where the junior officers are required to perform tasks as implied by their seniors. Compliance emerges from the normative influence element of conformity. Individuals are subdued by pressure from the need to be accepted by others, the individual powers to reward or punish other people and the conflict that exists between one’s own beliefs and those of others (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005). Behavioural researchers have identified several techniques through which individuals are led to compliance. The low ball technique is initiated by offering individuals an attractive initial deal that grabs their commitment. Once committed, the terms of the deal are changed where unattractive elements are included. Due to the initial commitment, the individual is still bound to the deal irrespective of its attractiveness or not. The front door technique requires compliance to an initial small request that ensures compliance to later larger requests. Free gifts activate the individual’s will to reciprocate the favour by willing to comply with a later request. This is the most employed technique which evolves into compliance although it can also be considered as blackmailing. The major difference is the intent underlying the act. Lastly, the door in the face technique involves the refusal to comply with a larger initial offer but leads to the acceptance of a smaller request (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008). A research study by Caldini in 2001 revealed several principles of compliance which were common in all the events of compliance under study (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). The first principle was reciprocation where individuals are obliged to return favours forwarded to them. Individuals who did not return favours were more likely to comply compared to those who returned favours. Secondly, credibility involves the source of the request and the power held by the source. Credible sources are more likely to elicit compliance since they possess immense knowledge and power thus easily convincing an individual to perform a task. Thirdly, friendship is a major compliance principle where individuals are most likely to perform an activity at the request of someone they know. This is based on the social exchange theory where human beings assist those who are close to them and in turn are assisted whenever they have a problem. Finally, scarcity of an object is likely to elicit compliance since the individual has a desire for the object since it plays a vital role in their life. (Taylor, Pellau & Sears, 2006) defines obedience as the voluntary or involuntary following of orders without questioning their source. Obedience is similar to conformity since the individual’s will is not identified and it is not taken into consideration. Unlike conformity and compliance, obedience emanates from a legitimate source of authority which has the power to punish or reward. Therefore, it can be stated that obedience emerges from authority that is vested in institutions or persons by the society. Obedience highly influences behaviours especially those of juniors who are under strict orders from their seniors. Similar to compliance, obedience requires an individual to partake a task on behalf of their superiors. On the other hand, obedience and conformity involves coercive acts especially where an individual refuses to obey or conform. Conformity, compliance and obedience elements tend to shun individuals that refuse to adopt a particular behaviour or perform a particular task voluntarily or under duress. However, a distinguishing perspective of obedience is the authority that has to be legitimate and it is accepted as the legal source of authority. Their powers can vary from coercive, reward, expert, referent or legitimate powers (Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett, 2006). A study by Stanley Milgram in 1963 revealed that individuals are most likely to perform tasks as required by those in authoritative positions. The study known as the obedience study involved forty male participants who were initially deceived that the exercise they were involved in was to determine the effects of punishment on learning. They were required to match words and every time they went wrong they would get an electric shock. The shock would increase every time the participant got an answer wrong. Milgram brought in an accomplice who pretended to be in pains when a fake shock was administered to him (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005). From the study, a number of factors related to obedience were observed which include an authority figure. The position and power of an authority figure influences an individual’s level of obedience. Also the presence of an authority figure goes a long way in influencing the degree of obedience among individuals. Increased individual presence and power increases the degree of obedience among the juniors. People in authority positions that hold immense levels of power are able to produce high obedience levels even in the absence of their physical presence. Secondly, individuals are more prone to obedience when they are separated from their victims in the event that they are required to obey a harmful order. These orders may involve harming another human being and the more the distance there is from the victim, the more the individual is likely to obey. Thirdly, responsibilities for personal actions that can result into harm reduce the levels of obedience among individuals. People are likely to obey orders in a situation that they are not responsible of the outcome. However, if responsibility is to be assumed, the individuals are likely to shy aware from obedience. Finally, people are more likely to obey later commands after they have successfully completed the initial command (Taylor, Pellau & Sears, 2006). They gain the confidence and later directions do not seem challenging for them and thus they willingly obey. Individuals are more likely to obey authorities so as to justify their behaviours to others in authority as opposed to themselves and not to offend the authoritative individual. An example is taking directions from a parent. Children have to obey their parents because not only does the bible say so but it amounts to respect. They do not want to be rude to their parent by refusing to perform a task they have been requested to. They may not grasp what they have been asked to do but they go ahead and do it to justify their behaviours to their parents. Conclusion Conformity, compliance and obedience involve how people behave when they are around others and how their behaviours are influenced by those around them. The influence depends on their willingness and the motives behind the behavioural change. It should be noted that the three behavioural elements result into rejection when individuals refuse to either conform and comply with the behaviours of their group members or obey their seniors’ commands. References Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social psychology, 6th Ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social Influence: Compliance & Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 55, P 591-621. Gilovich, T., Keltner, D. and Nisbett, E. (2006). Social psychology. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Taylor, S. E., Pellau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social psychology, 12th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson. Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Introduction to social psychology, 5th ed. NSW: Pearson. Read More

Informational influence refers to the reference made by an individual to a group member in order to seek accurate information. This influence is likely to arise in three situations where the individual faces an unknown situation, a crisis or requires professional advice. When facing an uncertain situation, the individual is often confused and they refer to their peers to assist them in making the right decisions. During a crisis, it is important to take action immediately and people depend on their group members to ease the panic.

People will often turn to experts for advice in matters they are unable to handle or seem confusing to them. Informational influence was documented from Muzafer Sherif’s experiment referred to as the Auto kinetic experiment. From this experiment, Sherif concluded that individual often have different opinions but these opinions smoothen after a period of time and tend to converge to a single opinion (Vaughan & Hogg, 2008). Similarly, group behaviours differ initially but eventually tend to adopt a single behaviour that group members conform to.

Normative influence on the other hand occurs when an individual changes their behaviours in order to be included in a group. These individuals aim at being liked by members of a particular group and included to avoid being embarrassed or ridiculed. An example of normative influence is the smoking behaviour among teens. Teens often tease and challenge their peers when they avoid smoking making them feel less important in the group. To maintain their resourcefulness in the group, these teens engage in smoking acts just to conform to the group’s behaviour.

Asch’s study revealed the existence of normative influence among individuals by asking them to compare the length of a line with three other comparison lines. The participants were grouped together and as a result most of them agreed on a common answer which was incorrect. Conformity can be influenced by factors such as gender, changes over time, personality, different cultural backgrounds and intelligence. Psychological reveal that students are less bound to conform due to their higher educational levels that call for independent thinking and inquiry (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005).

The concept of compliance is very similar to that of conformity but differs in the aspect that an individual does not fully relinquish their behaviours but rather adapt their behaviours to match those of another individual. This is unlike conformity where an individual yields immense power to influence another person’s behaviour and abandoning their own distinct behaviours. Conformity employs coercion, teasing and ridicule to force an individual into accepting a particular behaviour. This is unlike compliance which is gained through persuasion and inspiration.

Although to an extent it can be argued that it involves some elements of coercion since the other person is not asked whether they agree or disagree to perform a particular task. However, this degree of coercion is much lower than that involved in conformity. The person requesting for the performance of the task is not asking the individual to change their behaviours or beliefs but rather wants the task to be performed. This fact distinguishes compliance from conformity since conformity requires an individual to totally change their behaviours, beliefs and attitudes (Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett, 2006).

Individuals within a group may be required to comply with the several rules and regulations which unite the group. Individual members who opt not to comply lose their significance within the group and are considered a non-member. An example of an organization that requires compliance is the military organizations where the junior officers are required to perform tasks as implied by their seniors. Compliance emerges from the normative influence element of conformity. Individuals are subdued by pressure from the need to be accepted by others, the individual powers to reward or punish other people and the conflict that exists between one’s own beliefs and those of others (Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005).

Read More