Draft:Social Influence and Conformity in Psychology
Social influence refers to the ways in which individuals change their behaviour, attitudes, or beliefs to align with the norms or expectations of others, with conformity being a primary form of social influence. Conformity occurs when individuals adjust their behavior or beliefs to fit in with the group, often driven by normative social influence, where people seek acceptance, and informational social influence, where individuals rely on others for cues on how to behave in uncertain situations. Social identity theory also explains conformity as a means of aligning with groups that help define one’s social identity.[1]
Classic experiments, such as Asch's conformity experiments (1951), Milgram’s obedience study (1963), and Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment (1971), have contributed significantly to understanding these dynamics. Ethical concerns surrounding these studies highlight the psychological harm caused to participants, raising questions about informed consent and the application of findings to real-world scenarios. Conformity plays a role in various areas, including the workplace, politics, and consumer behavior, where individuals align their actions with group expectations or societal pressures.[2]
Types of Social Influence
[edit]The three major types of social influence are conformity, compliance, and obedience. These were identified by social psychologist Herbert Kelman in 1958. Since then, psychologists have learned a lot about how and why people are influenced in these different ways.
Conformity
[edit]Conformity is seen when individuals alter their attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours to align with the group, even without a direct request. This is what happened in Solomon Asch's (1951) famous study where confederates would give an incorrect answer to see if the true participants would give in and also give the incorrect answer.
Compliance
[edit]Behavior changes in response to direct requests from other people or groups. Researchers suggested that people comply for at least three different reasons: to gain a reward, to avoid punishment, or, more commonly, because they believe the behaviour is the "right thing to do" and thus obey the request.[3]
Obedience
When authority figures issue a direct command, people generally comply—especially, it seems, when it involves performing acts that one might otherwise find morally questionable.[4]
Theories of Conformity
[edit]A number of important theories have emerged to account for the reasons and processes behind conformity. Some of the most notable include:
1. Normative Social Influence
[edit]When it comes to normative social influence, it's really about individuals conforming to the influence of others to gain acceptance and be well-liked by their peers. People often follow group behavior when it comes to fitting in with social norms and don't tend to stray far from that when it comes to appearance and even personality, to some extent.
2. Informational Social Influence
[edit]People may go along with the crowd because they think the crowd knows something they don't. This is especially likely to happen when a situation is unclear or ambiguous(Sherif, 1936).
In somewhat more scientific language, we would say that a person's comprehension of a situation can become boosted by attending to the behavior of other people. This influence can occur even when individuals are not paying particular attention to what the other people are doing.
3. Social Impact Theory
[edit]Bib Latané put forth the social impact theory, which states that conformity is affected by three things: the group’s strength, the group’s immediacy, and the number of people in the group.[5] The group’s strength is related to how much the individual respects, trusts, or otherwise feels positively toward the group or its members. As a group becomes more respectful (stronger) and its number of members increases, the pressure to conform to the group also increases.
4. Social Identity Theory
[edit]Henri Tajfel and John Turner formulated Social Identity Theory, which tells us a great deal about why we conform[1]. Conformity is driven by our desire for identification with the group social structure. People are motivated to adopt the norms of groups they identify with to maintain a positive social identity.
Factors affecting Conformity
[edit]Many elements can affect how much people conform in a specific social situation. These elements include:
Group Size: As group size increases, conformity tends to increase, though this relationship plateaus beyond a certain size (Asch, 1951).
Unanimity: Conformity is higher when the group is unanimous in its views. Even a single dissenting opinion can reduce the pressure to conform (Asch, 1951).
Cohesion: The more cohesive a group, the more likely individuals are to conform to its norms (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
Status: Higher-status individuals often exert more influence over conformity (Latané, 1981).
Cultural Differences: People from collectivist cultures tend to show higher levels of conformity compared to individuals from individualist cultures (Smith et al., 2006).
Famous Experiments on Conformity:
[edit]1. Asch’s Conformity Experiments (1951)
[edit]
The experiment that Solomon Asch performed in 1951 stands as a demonstration of the force that group pressure can exert. In the experiment, participants were put in a situation where they were likely to get an answer wrong and were also likely to go along with the group in giving the wrong answer. The situation in the experiment was set up so that giving a right answer was somewhat awkward and, in a way, was not going along with the group. The experiment was important in what it showed about people and how much they are affected by the opinions of others.
| Trial | Correct Answer | Group Answer | Participant Answer | Conformity Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0% |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 25% |
| 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 50% |
Table 1: Example of Asch's conformity experiment.
2. Milgram’s Obedience Study (1963)
[edit]The Milgram experiment extensively probed the extent of authority figure obedience, especially when following orders that clashed with the subjects' personal moral values. Subjects were told to give ever-increasing amounts of what they thought were electric shocks to a "learner” (who actually was a confederate). The amount of shocking the subjects were willing to dish out under orders from the experimenter served to reveal just how far people will go when an authority figure tells them to do something (Milgram, 1963).
3. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
In the Stanford prison experiment, Philip Zimbardo examined how people are really not all that different when it comes to abusing and being subjected to authority. People who were given the authority role and the guards' sunglasses and uniforms got into the act and began to really abuse their power and the "prisoners" (who also were subjects). After only six days, the study had to be stopped, as it was feared the "prisoners" would suffer serious and lasting emotional damage (Zimbardo, 1971).
Critical Analysis
[edit]Classic investigations into social influence, like those by Asch (1951), Milgram (1963), and Zimbardo (1971), have been widely criticized and have even been called unethical by some critics. These studies certainly brought in valuable insights. But they had all kinds of methodological problems.[6] For one thing, the investigators failed to get the participants' informed consent, which is now a standard part of research ethics. Another problem with the studies—or really, a huge issue with all three of them—is that they caused a lot of psychological distress and even potential harm to the participants involved. If we are to accept the value of these appearances as social influence, we must seriously consider the kinds of negative effects the experiments had on the participants. Indeed, many have questioned the legitimacy of these studies as models of social influence.[7]
In addition, research has indicated that cultures and situations have an impact on conformity that classic studies did not fully consider. Studies like those by Smith et al. (2006) show that people from cultures that value collectivism conform more than those from cultures that value individualism. This hints at the appearance of Asch's line judgment task or Milgram's obedience study as potentially not producing universally applicable findings. Furthermore, the social media age we now live in may produce new online dynamics of social influence that were not previously possible or observable in a laboratory. It would benefit future research on conformity and social influence in our contemporary society to consider some of the obvious next questions raised by our current digital situation.
Real-World Implications
[edit]Conformity has extensive implications in several contexts:
Workplace Dynamics: In a workplace, conformity can result in groupthink, which is harmony-seeking carried too far and which results in bad decision-making.[8]
Political Behaviour: Conformity can be utilised to influence large groups of people to have a certain opinion or to behave in a certain way, like voting. Political parties often use social influence as a kind of "mob psychology" to get people to act in ways that they wouldn't act if they were thinking more independently and rationally.[9]
Social Behaviour: The act of conformity is often used in consumer behaviour to enhance the effectiveness of marketing strategies. When people are unsure what to do, they look to the actions of others. This is particularly true for young people who so often are not in possession of a well-defined identity and hence look to others when making decisions about how to define themselves.[10]
Another aspect of social behaviour is the part that conformity plays in it. Although conformity can have negative consequences, on the whole, it has a positive rather than a negative effect on social behavior and social change. This is because the numerous "little actions" of many individuals can add up and result in "big actions" that can change society for the better. Unfortunately, conformity can also be associated with or can lead to prejudice, stereotyping, and unthinking obedience to authority.
Conclusion
[edit]Individual behaviour in groups is significantly shaped by social influence, especially through conformity. Groundbreaking studies by Asch, Milgram, and Zimbardo—while sometimes facing ethical criticism—have provided essential insights into how social pressure and authority push people toward certain actions and decisions. More recent work has expanded our understanding of conformity by showing that social influence is not universally experienced but varies across different kinds of situations and, importantly, different cultures. In what follows, I will take a closer look at the classic studies, the criticisms they have faced, and what our current understanding of them suggests about the nature of social influence.
Although previous studies have their limits, they nevertheless show that social influence is a force that begs to be understood. It acts upon us in everyday life, nudging us in the direction of what and how to behave in various domains (or so we think). It’s responsible for our big and small decisions. It’s also omnipresent. We can’t escape from it, and we seem to need it. We are, in a very real sense, influenced by the influence. Still, there are many ethical and practical questions that we—and the people we influence—need to answer regarding the manipulation of this powerful social glue.
References
[edit]- ^ a b Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
- ^ Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kagitcibasi, C. (2006). Understanding social psychology across cultures: Living and working in a changing world. Sage Publications.
- ^ Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.
- ^ Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378
- ^ Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(2), 343–356.
- ^ Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's Behavioral study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423.
- ^ Aronson, E. (2013). The social animal (11th ed.). Worth Publishers
- ^ Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
- ^ Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
- ^ Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.