Compliance, Obedience, and Conformity in Social Behavior - Term Paper Example

Compliance, Obedience and Conformity Name Institution Professor Course Date Abstract Conformity, obedience and compliance are all forms of social influence. Social influence entails the manner through which individuals influence the behaviours, feelings and beliefs of others. Compliance occurs when a person changes her/his behaviour to react to an implicit or explicit request made by others. Compliance is an active kind of social influence intentionally instigated by an individual and is an external type of social influence. Conformity is viewed as a passive kind of manipulation. This is because members of a group do not dynamically try to manipulate others. Individuals simply observe the behaviours of group and change their conducts and views to fit the group. Obedience, on the contrary, is a shift in conduct because of a direct instruction from those in authority. It is a dynamic type of manipulation because it is directly instigated through an authority figure. Obedience is external in that explicit conducts are the focus of instructions or commands. Although compliance, obedience and conformity refer to shifts in behaviour triggered by other people, these terms diverge in their breadth .Conformity comprises of obedience and compliance as it entails conducts that occur because of other people’s influence. Compliance and obedience entails the conducts resulting specifically from orders or requests. This paper compares and contrasts the concept of compliance, obedience and conformity. The paper underlines the similarities and differences of the concepts through making reference to relevant theory, concepts and research and provides original applied examples to each concept. Definitions Conformity refers to any behaviour change caused by a group or another person. Conformity makes individuals to act in some way because of other people’s influence. In this regard, conformity is restrained to shift in behaviour caused by other persons. Conformity entails the predisposition of a person to assume similar behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs as other people or a group. Compliance entails shift in behaviour requested by a group or another person. This means that a person acts in some manner because other people requested her/him to behave in a particular manner. Obedience entails a shift in behaviour ordered by a group or other persons. Obedience makes an individual to act in a given manner because other people instructed her/him to do so. Obedience takes place when an individual acts in a given manner because he/she has been ordered to do so by a person in authority. Compliance, Obedience and Conformity Social psychology focuses on how individuals influence and are manipulated by others. How people of a group manipulate a person is a crucial portion of social psychology. The study of social influences is legendary for its explication and illustration of dramatic psychological phenomena that usual take place in direct reaction to explicit social forces. Some of the most tremendous images from the social psychology field’s account portray participants struggling to understand their circumstances. The images also portray how people react with respect to their private judgement in the face of peripheral pressures to do otherwise. These images involve bespectacled and befuddled young male conformity experiments whose acuity pitted the probability of an erroneous agreement against the probability of false eyeglass prescription. The Fraser’s and freedman (1996) seminal exploration of the foot-in-the door method is a good example of compliance obtained with explicit pressure. The exploration disclosed subtler facets of social influence. Research holds prominent stimulant years of perceptive inquiries into the temperament of obedience, conformity and compliance. However, people encounter difficulties in differentiating and citing similarities between these concepts. Although, conformity, compliance and obedience entail changes in conduct triggered by other people, they are distinct in their breadth. Differences and similarities Conformity comprises of obedience and compliance. This is because conformity entails any conduct that takes place because of the influence of other people (Andrighetto & Conte 2012). For instance, a person may not have received orders from a group of gangsters to join the group, but the conduct of joining the group and engaging in stealing may have taken place because the individual learned from, or copied, wanted to impress or was in some ways manipulated by a gang member to join the group. Obedience and compliance entail the conduct that arose from orders or requests (Koerner, 2014). For instance, the need to obey ones parents is a command from the bible and the need to uphold a nation’s law is a command from the authority. Notwithstanding that the notion of conformity includes other concepts; people change their behaviours or beliefs to fit with a given group. Conformity in a group involves a member altering his/her beliefs and attitudes to complement those of other members within a group. Those that conform are compliant and obedient. In order for a person to conform to a given group, she/he must attribute somebody as holding the credibility and legitimacy to influence or direct the group’s conduct (Song & Ma, 2012). Obedience and compliance are diverse presentations of rational conformity. For instance, a group of gangsters may lose credibility of a group member who does not conform to the needs of the group. According to Cappellen (2011), outside concerns for submission to powerful figures and authority where the religious mindset hold the character of the infantile reliance from the imaginary figure of an omnipotent father, religion is conceived as mirroring conformity with groups practices, thoughts and beliefs. Religion motivates submissive ideas and promotes compliance (Welch, Tittle & Grasmick, 2006). The idea of compliance is akin to conformity, but it is slightly dissimilar. For compliance to take place within a given group, one must acclimatize her/his actions to rules or other people’s wishes. An individual that conforms should hold a character that enables her/him to yield to other people. Acts of compliance and requests for compliance takes place in everybody’s life (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). For instance, when a parent asks a child to do something for her is a request for compliance. The most efficient way to obtain compliance is via inspiration and persuasion. Even if a mother asks her child to carry out a given task, the parent is not asking the child to disagree or agree with the task. The parent requesting a favour from the child is not necessarily trying to alter the child’s beliefs, but he/she simply wants the task to be carried out. This idea sets apart compliance and conformity because conformity would require the child to change his/her attitudes and beliefs to compliment those of the parent. With respect to compliance, the child alters her/his behaviours to react to the request of the parent. The major facet of conformity is that an individual is manipulated by a person or a group, changes her/his attitudes or beliefs. On the other hand, the major attainment of compliance is the accomplishment of a given task. With respect to social learning theory, people conform to certain behaviours through learning .Behaviours are facilitated via observational learning and modelling. The social learning theory stresses that person’s behaviour is manipulated through characters of a person and the environment (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). There must be some sort of motivation or incentive that triggers a person’s change of behaviour. For instance, a person who conforms to a group of gangster’s norms is motivated to earn quick money through stealing. Social learning theory accounts for people that become prone to deviance the same way it accounts for people conforming to societal norms. People go along with inaccurate reactions of others, despite the reality being as clear as it is. Social learning theory is founded on the premise that intimate groups are crucial in forming and shaping the conducts of an individual. Obedience entails a more tremendous type of social influence. Obedience begins early in childhood when children are socialised to follow their teachers and parents’ orders. By the time these children become adults, they are able to follow the orders of their bosses and governments. Obedience makes people to follow orders without questioning. However, obedience unlike compliance is an attribute founded in everyone under the correct situations or circumstances (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). For instance, a group of gangsters is not obedient to the authority. This is because stealing and other bad behaviours harmful to others are not allowed by any government. Such people are disobedient to their country’s rules .When one of the members of such groups feels that what the group does is not right, such members experience cognitive dissonance. With respect to cognitive dissonance theory, people encounter an uncomfortable feeling when they have two or more cognitions that conflict with each other. A person may be obedient to a given group’s rules, but when his/her behaviour seem to conflict with his/her self image, the person experiences cognitive dissonance. Obedience and conformity are akin in the sense that they both entail the abdication of a person’s judgment in some external forces (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). However, these concepts are different in the sense that in conformity, there lack explicit need to act in a given way. In obedience, on the contrary, people are instructed or ordered to perform tasks. In addition, people are influenced by their peers to conform. People’s conducts in conformity are more similar and they are influenced (Andrighetto & Conte 2012). However, in obedience, there is a distinction in prominence from the beginning. Instead of mutual influence, obedience is impacted through direction with somebody in power influencing the conduct. Conformity has more to do with psychological call for acceptance by others. Conformity entails going along with one’s friends in a group circumstances (Andrighetto & Conte 2012). On the contrary, obedience has more to do with social status and power of a given authority image in a hierarchical circumstance. Compliance, obedience and conformity differ based on their end consequences. For instance, people comply because of friendships, commitment, reciprocity, authority, scarcity and groups. People obey because of the apparent upshots linked to disobedience (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). For instance, a person may prevent himself from hurting another for fear of being arrested. More so, people obey to obtain certain promotions or advantages from the authority. People choose to obey because they respect, value and like authority. With respect to the drive theory, people conform, comply and obey because of an instinctual call that drives the conducts of an individual. According to Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini and Kenrick (2006), conformity is a behavioural shift designed to imitate or match the expectations, behaviours or beliefs of imagined or real others. The tendency to imitate others is sometimes so rapid and mindless that it is nearly automatic. Griskevicius et al (2006) ascertain that people conform because conformity is adaptive. People conform because following others often triggers more accurate and better decisions, particularly when people face uncertainties. People conform because they need information from others. This type of accuracy-founded conformity is called informational influence. People obey authorities because of pressure, unvoiced or voiced. Hamilton (1995) suggests that both obedience and conformity may inspire destructive outcomes in workplaces. This is because conformity crimes in workplace may reinforce or supplement obedience crimes. According to Hamilton (1995), conformity and obedience differ with respect to hierarchy when obedience to authority takes place within a hierarchical organisation. Conformity, on the other hand, controls the behaviour among those of equal position or status while obedience connects ones social position to another (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). Obedience and conformity also differ with respect to imitation where conformity is an imitation and obedience is not. Conformity instigates homogenisation of behaviour. However, in obedience, there is compliance that takes place without imitation of the manipulating source. Conformity and obedience differ in relation to explicitness. This is where the prescription for action is overt in obedience and takes the form of a command or an order. In conformity, the need for going along with other people is implicit. These concepts also differ with respect to voluntarism and this is the most apparent difference amid conformity and obedience. People sometimes deny conformity and take on obedience to explain their actions. This is because conformity is a reaction to pressures that are implied and people interpret their own conducts as voluntary (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011). In obedience, the conducts are not voluntary but are shaped by certain rules. For instance, in military rules, obedience serves as a full justification of some punishable acts such as shooting down a suspected criminal. Conformity is an excuse instead of a justification and proof of conformity can act as an indicator of the practical individual standard for a given situation. However, conformity holds the potential to alleviate punishment instead of leading to acquittal. Obedience is a duty but conformity is not (Hamilton 1995). Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) assert that compliance entails a certain form of reaction to a given form of communication. The request may be implicit or explicit. With respect to drive theory, people are inspired to attain their goals in the most rewarding and productive way possible. An individual’s need to react according to a vibrant social situations calls for a correct reality perception. People can prevent or alleviate feeling of fear and shame thorough public compliance, and feelings of pity and guilt through private compliance. Cialdini and Goldstein (2004) ascertain that people are rewarded for conducting themselves with the directives, advice and opinions of authority figures. Authorities attain their influence through social power. Summary Compliance, obedience and conformity are influenced through positive self-concept, affiliation and accuracy. However, social influence differs as points along the field according to the extent of pressure exerted on a person. With respect to the social impact theory, social influence is as a result of social forces that operate on the targeted individual. However, the overall influence of a set of social forces is dependent on the forces immediacy, number and strength. The influence in obedience, compliance and conformity may come from a person, group, or an institution and in all the concepts, the behaviour may be destructive or constructive or neutral. People, may conform or uphold their independence from other people. People may comply with requests or react with assertiveness or they may obey orders or oppose powerful people in act of defiance. Conclusion Social psychology is committed to social conduct in all its forms incorporating compliance, obedience, conformity and social attitudes to attribution processes and authority. Compliance, obedience and conformity to authority are different but are all linked to the social influence process. Conformity entails giving into social demands in the absence of explicit request. Compliance entails giving into explicit requests from a group or another person while obedience entails giving into instructions or orders from authority. Compliance and conformity can lead to unhealthy behaviours. Conformity is augmented when tasks are difficult and ambiguous .When beliefs and behaviours change because of unspoken or implicit group pressure, conformity has taken; when change occurs because of a request, compliance has taken place and when behaviours change as a result of orders or command, obedience has taken place. References Andrighetto, G., & Conte, R. (2012). Cognitive dynamics of norm compliance. From norm adoption to flexible automated conformity. Artificial Intelligence Law, 20, 359-381. Cappellen, P.V. (2011). Beyond compliance to authoritative figures: Religious priming increases conformity to informational influence among submissive people. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 97-105. Cialdini, R.B., & Goldstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N.J., Mortensen, C.R., Cialdini, R.B., & Kenrick, D.T.(2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motivates facilitate strategic (Non) conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (2), 231-294. Hamilton, V.L. (1995). Crimes of obedience and conformity in the workplaces: Surveys of Americans, Russians, and Japanese. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (3), 67-88. Koerner, M. (2014). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 63-93. Song, G., & Ma, Q. (2012). The psychological explanation of conformity. Social Behaviour and Personality, 40 (8), 1365-1372. Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Social psychology (6th Ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Welch, M., Tittle, C., & Grasmick, H. (2006). Christian religiosity, self-control and social conformity. Social Forces, 84 (3), 1605-1623. Read More

Some of the most tremendous images from the social psychology field’s account portray participants struggling to understand their circumstances. The images also portray how people react with respect to their private judgement in the face of peripheral pressures to do otherwise. These images involve bespectacled and befuddled young male conformity experiments whose acuity pitted the probability of an erroneous agreement against the probability of false eyeglass prescription. The Fraser’s and freedman (1996) seminal exploration of the foot-in-the door method is a good example of compliance obtained with explicit pressure.

The exploration disclosed subtler facets of social influence. Research holds prominent stimulant years of perceptive inquiries into the temperament of obedience, conformity and compliance. However, people encounter difficulties in differentiating and citing similarities between these concepts. Although, conformity, compliance and obedience entail changes in conduct triggered by other people, they are distinct in their breadth. Differences and similarities Conformity comprises of obedience and compliance.

This is because conformity entails any conduct that takes place because of the influence of other people (Andrighetto & Conte 2012). For instance, a person may not have received orders from a group of gangsters to join the group, but the conduct of joining the group and engaging in stealing may have taken place because the individual learned from, or copied, wanted to impress or was in some ways manipulated by a gang member to join the group. Obedience and compliance entail the conduct that arose from orders or requests (Koerner, 2014).

For instance, the need to obey ones parents is a command from the bible and the need to uphold a nation’s law is a command from the authority. Notwithstanding that the notion of conformity includes other concepts; people change their behaviours or beliefs to fit with a given group. Conformity in a group involves a member altering his/her beliefs and attitudes to complement those of other members within a group. Those that conform are compliant and obedient. In order for a person to conform to a given group, she/he must attribute somebody as holding the credibility and legitimacy to influence or direct the group’s conduct (Song & Ma, 2012).

Obedience and compliance are diverse presentations of rational conformity. For instance, a group of gangsters may lose credibility of a group member who does not conform to the needs of the group. According to Cappellen (2011), outside concerns for submission to powerful figures and authority where the religious mindset hold the character of the infantile reliance from the imaginary figure of an omnipotent father, religion is conceived as mirroring conformity with groups practices, thoughts and beliefs.

Religion motivates submissive ideas and promotes compliance (Welch, Tittle & Grasmick, 2006). The idea of compliance is akin to conformity, but it is slightly dissimilar. For compliance to take place within a given group, one must acclimatize her/his actions to rules or other people’s wishes. An individual that conforms should hold a character that enables her/him to yield to other people. Acts of compliance and requests for compliance takes place in everybody’s life (Vaughan & Hogg, 2011).

For instance, when a parent asks a child to do something for her is a request for compliance. The most efficient way to obtain compliance is via inspiration and persuasion. Even if a mother asks her child to carry out a given task, the parent is not asking the child to disagree or agree with the task. The parent requesting a favour from the child is not necessarily trying to alter the child’s beliefs, but he/she simply wants the task to be carried out. This idea sets apart compliance and conformity because conformity would require the child to change his/her attitudes and beliefs to compliment those of the parent.

With respect to compliance, the child alters her/his behaviours to react to the request of the parent.

Read More